(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Safety of Life at Sea"

Google 



This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 



•b^*^ 

s-"-'*^ 





















b, ."•• aO- 



.<!?'"V. 



•bt.* 















■• _*^'">* -. 















i: ^o f 









tf ■■' 



ft "bv* 



4 "f^o* 











u. 




y 


\ 






■■** 


<f • 


'*o 


/ . 


\ '-f^ 


0< 


/"- ■ 


' ,''° 


'%. ■ 


; .*^ 




y 


X 


/ 






"'b 




/ 


X 


.*^ 


»° 


'■*-.. 


./ 


^ 


■ i" 


"^ 















SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA 



HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS »? ^ 3 

SECOND SESSION 



I 



ON 



AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION RELATING TO 

SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA, SIGNED AT 

LONDON, JANUARY 20, 1914 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 




WASHIN8TOH 
QOVKRNMENT PRINTING OPFICE 





COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 



WILLIAM J. 

BENJAMIN F. SHIVELY, Indiana. 
JAMES P. CLARKE, Arkansas. 
GILBERT M. HITCHCOCK, Nebraska, 
JAMES A. O'GORMAN, New York. 
JOHN SHARP WILLIAMS, Mississippi 
CLAUDE A. SWANSON, Virginia. 
ATLEE POMERENE, Ohio. 
MARCUS A. SMITH, Arizona. 

W. R 

2 



STONE, Missouri, Chairman. 

WILLARD SAULSBURY, Delaware. 
HENRY CABOT LODGE, Massachusetts. 
WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, Michigan. 
ELIHU ROOT, New York. 
PORTER J. McCUMBER, North Dakota. 
GEORGE SUTHERLAND, Utah. 
WILLIAM E. BORAH, Idaho. 
THEODORE E. BURTON, Ohio. 

. HOLUSTER, Clerk. 



JAN 12 t915 



»» 



■ 
X 

r 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Page 

Alexander, Hon. Joshua W., Btatements of *» 5, 85 

I* American delegates: 

j : Departmental letters recommending appropriations for expenses of 89 

Preliminary work — 

Exhibit A. Aids and perils to navigation 92 

Exhibit B. Radiotelegraphjr 102 

Exhibit C. Efficiency of officers and crews 105 

Exhibit D. Hulls and bulkheads 110 

Exhibit E. Lifeboats 153 

Exhibit F. Fire protection 158 

Baltic, station bill of 58 

Bertholf, Capt. Ellsworth P., statement of 198 

Bullard, Capt. William H. G., statement of 240 

Buxton, Mr. Sidney, address of (House of Commons) 59 

Gapps, Rear Admiral Washington L., statement of 223 

Carmania, station bill of 59 

Chamberlain, Mr. Eugene T., Commissioner of Navigation, statement of 219 

Cooper, Capt. George F., statement of 185 

Davies, D. Thomas, port warden, Seattle, Wash., letter of 83 

Ferguson, Mr. Homer L., statement of 231 

French and British delegates, provisional preliminary conclusions of 20 

Furuseth, Mr. Andrew: 

Statements of 7, 55 

Appointed delegate to London conference 7 

Recommendations of, to Secretary of Commerce 13 

Resignation of, telegram to the President of the United States 40 

Resignation of, report to the President of the United States... 41 

Supplemental memorandiun of (Appendix A) 251 

(rerman and British delegates, provisional preliminary conclusions of 15 

International Conference on Safety of Life at'pQia:/;^* 

Questions before the conference (Appendix B) 253 

List of delegates to '. . * : 259 

Mersey, Lord , cnairman of London conference, closing address to conference.. 243 
Uhler, Mr. Ueorge, Supervising Inspector General Steamboat Inspection 

Service, statement of 209 

Wescott, Mr. William A., statement of 75 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 



WEDNESDAY, APBIL 1, 1014. 

Committee on Foreign Relations, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, D. C. 

The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., pursuant to the call of the 
chairman. 

Present: Senators Stone (chairman), Shively, Hitchcock, O'Gor- 
man, WilUams, Swanson, Pomerene, Saulsbury, Lodge, Smith (Mich.), 
Root, McCumber, Sutherland, Borah^ and Burton. 

There appeared before the comnuttee the following members of 
the United States Commission to the London Conference on Safety 
of Life at Sea, held at London: J. W. Alexander, Member of the 
House of Representatives; E. T. Chamfeerlain, Commissioner of 
Navigation; (Japt. Commandant E. P. Bertholf, Revenue-Cutter 
Service; Chief Constructor WashiMton L. Capps, rear admiral, 
United States Navy; Capt. George F. Cooper, United States Navy, 
Hydrographer; Homer L. Ferguson, general manager of the New- 
port News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.; Alfred Gilbert Smitli, 
vice president of the New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co.; Capt. 
William H. G. Bullard, United States Navy, Superintendent of the 
Naval Radio Service; and George Uhler, Supervising Inspector 
General, Steamboat-Inspection Service. 

There also appeared Mr. Andrew Furuseth, representing the Inter- 
national Seamen's Union. 

The Chairman. Judge Alexander, the committee would Uke to 
hear both sides on this matter, giving one-half hour of the hour we 
have to each side. Make as clear and comprehensive a statement as 
you can within that time. Who will speak for the convention — its 
ratification ? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSHUA W. ALEXANDEB, A BEPBESENT- 
ATIVE IN CONOBESS FBOM THE STATE OF MISSOUBI. 

Mr. Alexander. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I was chairman of 
the delegation to the International Conference on Safety of Life at 
Sea. Tnere are a good many sides to the convention, and each sub- 
ject was treated by a committee. I have all the commissioners here, 
in order to speak with the greatest authority and most inteUigently, 
I would, of course, prefer for the chairman or ranking member of each 
committee to speak with reference to the subject considered by the 
committee. For instance, within the conference the work was 
divided between committees. There was a committee on construc- 
tion — and I may say the most important committee of the confer- 
ence, too, because it had to do with the construction of ships — of 



6 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

which committee Admiral Capps was the chairman, and Mr. Fergu- 
son, of the Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., and Mr. 
Smith, of the New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co., were members, 
and Admiral Capps was made chairman of that committee in the 
conference. 

The committee on safety of navigation was one of the important 
committees of the conference, of which Capt. Cooper, of the Hydro- 
graphic Office of the Navy, and Capt. Commandant BerthoK, of the 
American delegation, were members. The committee on boats and 
davits was an maportant committee too, and was made up, so far as 
our delegation was concerned, of three members, of which Gen. Uhler, 
the Chiei of the Steamboat-Inspection Service, Capt. BuUard, of the 
Navy, and, for a time, Mr. Furuseth were members. The committee 
on wireless telegraphy had representatives from all the nations, as 
did aU these committees, and Mr. Chamberlain and Capt. Bullard 
were the American representatives on that committee. Besides being 
a member of the committee on safety certificates, I was a member 
of the committee on redaction, as was Mr. Chamberlain. We were 
both members of the committee on safety certificates and of redac- 
tion, and there was a general committee which had jurisdiction of the 
questions which did not -fall within the jurisdiction of other com- 
mittees, of which Lord Mersev was chairman. I understood Mr. 
Furuseth, who retired from that committee, leveled his criticism 
against the action of the conference on the requirements so far as able 
seamen is concerned. 

We are not here to insist on the ratification of this convention 
unless it raises the international standard of safety of life at sea. 
We are here at the service of this committee. If there is any objec- 
tion, if there is any reason urged why it should not be ratified, we 
are here to answer that objection. 

Senator Williams. I should like to ask you a question. I have 
seen it only in the public prints, but is it true that this convention 
provides boats for only three-fourths of the passengers and crew. 

Mr. Alexander. It is not, except in a certain event. 

Senator Williams. What is the boat complement ? 

Mr. Alexander. There is a certain event in which the ships will 
not have to provide for more than 75 per cent lifeboats and for 25 
per cent life rafts, but only in a certain event. I wiU just call your 
attention to the provision of the convention itself. 

Senator Williams. Yes; I should like to have that. 

Mr. Alexander. Can you refer, Capt. Bullard, directly to that 
provision ? 

Capt. Bullard. I can in a second, if I have the document, Judge. 

Senator Hitchcock. WiU you let me suggest that it might be 
better for the committee if some one of your members, or Mr. Furu- 
seth in opposition, should state succinctly the exact objections to 
the convention ? Could that not be done as a preliminary ? 

Senator Williams. The objections are twofold. 

Senator Hitchcock. I have a general idea, but I think it ought to 
go on the record from one of these gentlemen. 

Senator Williams. I understand there are two objections, at 
least two. One is the requirement of lifeboats, that it does not come 
up to standard, and the other is that they only require two able- 
bodied seamen for each lifeboat. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 7 

Senator O'Gorman. I suggest that the gentlemen present object^ 
ing state their objections. 

The Chairman. I think that would be a very good way to pro-* 
ceed. Who will appear against the treaty ? 

STATEMENT OF MB. ANDBEW FUBUSETH. 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the 
International Seaman's Union of America, and was a delegate to the 
conference and served up to the close of the committee meetings as 
a member of the committee on life-saving appUances. 

I come before you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, requesting that 
- the convention on the safety of life at sea, signed in London January 
■ 20, 1914, be not approved. 

[ ' First. Because it surrenders the jurisdiction of the United States 
I over foreign vessels coming to our ports in all matters pertaining to 
I safety, including manning. 

Second. Because the standards, provisions, and regulations con- 
tained in the proposed treaty are not of such a nature as to furnish 
reasonable safety at sea. 

Third. It enacts treaties which provide for the arrest, detention, 
and delivering up of seamen and wul thereby prevent the buildiug of 
a national merchant marine ill the foreign trade. 

The President appointed me as one of the delegates to attend the 
conference on safety of life at sea. I was at that conference. It was 
at that conference this treaty was drawn up. I attended its sessions 
as one of the delegates representing the United States from Novem- 
ber 12 to December 22, when I resigned. 

In order that my attitude at the conference and my reasons for 
resiming may be more clearly understood, it is necessarv for me to 
explain some things that took place immediately following my 
appointment. 

1 was notified of my appointment in a letter from Secretary Red- 
field, in which he advised me as follows: * 

Department op Commerce, 

Ofpice of the Secretary, 

Washington, October S, 1913. 

My Dear Mr. Furuseth: The President of the United States has appointed you 
one of the commissioners to represent the United States at the international maritime 
conference on safety at sea to meet at London on November 12. 

In view of the short interval before the conference assembles it is desirable that the 
commissioners to represent the United States should meet informally as soon as prac- 
ticable to consider preliminary arrangements. 

I shall be gratified if you can be present at a meeting of the American delegation at 
my office, 513 Commerce Building, Nineteenth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Tuesday, October 7, at 2.30 p. m. 
Respectfully, 

William C. Redpield, Secretary. 
Mr. Andrew Furuseth, 

National Hotel, Washington, D. C. 

Immediately upon receiving that I received a document from the 
Commissioner of Navigation. This document is dated September 13, 
and it is headed, ''Report to the Secretary of Commerce of the com- 
mittee on efficiency of officers and crews — international conference on 
safety at sea/' It is signed by Mr. E. T. Chamberlain, as chairman. 
I should like to have it consicfered as a whole by the committee and 
have it made a part o! the record at this point, but ^\i.«X^ o\^^ x^"fe.$L^ 
couple of words of it now. 



8 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Beport to the Secretary op Commerce op the Committee on Epficiency op 
Oppicers and Crews — International Conference on Sapety at Sea. 

« 

Department op Commerce, 
Washington, September ISy 19 IS. 
To Hon. William C. Rbdfield, 

Secretary of Commerce. 

Sir: The Committee on Efl&ciency of Officers and Crews submits the following 
report for the consideration of the Secretary of Commerce in the preparation of data 
lor the use of the delegates of the United States to the International Conference on 
Safety at Sea. 

The committee organized May 16, 1913^ and has held seven meetings. After 
some study of the laws of other nations relating to the efficiency of officers and crews, 
of foreign reports and of bills pending in the Congress of the United States, with the 
accompanying testimony and reporte, bearing more or less directly upon the sub- 
ject, the committee on Jime 7 sent the attached letter of inquiry (appendix) to the 
principal American ocean-steamship companies, to maritime exchanges and chain- 
pers 01 commerce at our largest seaports, to organizations of masters and mates, engi- 
neers and seamen, to representative American ship captains, and to others, the 
results of whose experience might be helpful to the committee. Thirty- two replies 
have been carefully considered. 

At the outset the committee cordially concurs with the following views expressed 
in the closing paragraph of the report on May 15, 1913, of tlie British Departmental 
Committee on Boate and Davits : 

"The efficiency of the arrangements for saving life at sea depends as much upon 
the competency of the officers and crew as upon the life-saving appliances on board. 
The boats and other appliances require efficient crews to handle them. Strict dis- 
cij^ine and obedience are essential. 

The efficiency of officers of merchant vessels is already determined in accord with 
regulations established by the principal maritime nations, which, though differing 
somewhat in scope and detail, are reasonably similar in the standards reqiured. 

1. Discipline and obedience to orders are the first essentials to efficient crews, but 
these are matters for local legislation and custom rather than international agreement. 

2. The physical condition and health of seamen and the sanitary conditions under 
which they pursue their calling enter into the problem of efficiency and in our opinion 
are proper subjects of international regulation. Conclusions on these subjects, how- 
ever, must be based on medical and hygienic investigation and we are in doubt 
whether the program of the conference provides for the consideration of this subject 
or whether the duration of the conference will permit the investigation and discussion 
necessary to authoritative conclusions. 

3. Training of the crews is the second essential to efficiency and the standards for 
such training are proper and necessary subjects for international regulation . 

4. The basis of such training, so far as safety is concerned, should be the fire drill, 
closing bulkhead doors, and lifeboat drills. 

5. Lifeboat drill may be divided into two parts: 

(a) Training of the crew of each lifeboat in the swinging out and lowering of boats, 
direction and stowing of passengers, use of oars and other equipment. 

(6) Trainini^ of the entire crew as a unit in their duties when it becomes necessary 
to abandon ship. 

6. The efficiency of the crew as a unit can be attained only by freouent and thorough 
drills of the entire crew, or at least of not less than a full watch of all departments. 

Such drills should take place : 

(a) After the ship has left the wharf on her voyage. 

(6) As a general rule once a week. 

7. Lifeboats may be divided into two classes: 
Class I— 

(a) Boats under davits. 
(6) Collaj)sible or decked lifeboats. 
Class II. life rafts — 

(«) Each boat of Class I should have at least three efficient boat hands (as herein- 
fkfter defined), including the officer or petty officer in charge of the boat. 
(6) Each life raft (Class II) should have at least one efficient boat hand. 

8. DeJinition.--Xn efficient boat hand shall be a man trained in the launching, 
lowering, detaching, and handling of boats and the use of oars and shall also have 
served at least one year on vessels navigating the ocean, bays, sounds, or large inland 
seas or lakes. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 9 

9. The efficient boat hand shall have a Government certificate as such, which shall 
be recognized by other Governments reciprocally. 

10. Asiatics may be certified as efficient boat hands provided they meet the pre- 
scribed standards and also can understand and answer the orders of the officers relating 
to lifeboat service and duties. 

11. Crews should be drilled at fire quarters and closing bulkhead doors where such 
exist at least once a week. 

CARGO STEAMERS. 

In view of the material differences between passenger and cargo steamers and of the 
further fact that the establishment of a new rating — efficient boat hand — ^has been 
recommended for ocean passenger steamers which will require time to carry out, 
the committee makes no recommendation for cargo steamers oeyond the requirement 
{d weekly boat and fire drills. 

LOOKOUTS. 

1 12. Seamen shall not serve as lookouts on ocean passenger steamers unless they 
kave been examined as to acuity of vision, color sense, and hearing, and have Gov- 
ernment certificates thereto; provided that ship surgeons or other reputable physi- 
cians or oculists may issue temporary certificates in cases where a Government med- 
ical officer is not accessible. 

HEARING AND VISION OP OPPICERS. 

13. In our judgment all licensed officers (including engineers) in the merchant 
marine ebould be required to pass tests for hearing, and all navigating or deck officers 
should be required also to pass tests for color sense and acuity of vision. These tests 
should be applied by Government medical officers — ^in the United States by officers 
of the Public Health Service. The tests should be practical and reasonable: (a) For 
hearing we suggest the requirement of ability to understand the words of ordinary 
conversation at 30 feet; (6) for acuity of vision, using the Snellen test card, we suggest 
a standard without spectacles of 20/20 vision in one eye and at least 20/40 in the other, 
provided that a candidate whose vision without glasses is less than this standard but 
not below 20/40 in one eye and 20/70 in the other who can show a corrected vision with 
spectacles of 20/20 in one eye and 20/40 in the other may be accepted; (c) tests for color 
sense should be made with the Holmgren worsted or similar method. 

14. Licensed officers at the end of five-year periods should be reexamined as to color 
sense, acuity of vision, and hearing, but slightly lower standards for acuity of vision 
and hearing would seem proper in view of the officer's increased experience. 

Respectfully, 

E. T. Chamberlain, 
Commissioner of Navigation, Chairman. 
D. P. Foley, 
Senior Captain, U. 8. Reoenue-Cutter Service. 

Henry M. Seeley, 
Supervising Inspector, Second District, Steamboat- Inspection Service. 

W. J. Pettus, 
Assistant Surgeon General, Public Health Service. 

The above report is signed by me, subject to the reservation that I believe it unwise 
for the committee to confine itself to the recommendation that boat drills should take 
place "after the ship has left the wharf on her voyage" (p. 2, sec. 6a), and after the 
word "certificate," section 9, add the words "of discharge." 

1. While I fully realize the importance of both boat and fire drills on shipboard, 
and know that without proper training of ships' crews by such drills the effectiveness 
of the elaborate equipment now required and further contemplated on board would be 
reduced to a minimum, I have considerable doubt as to the advisability of our com- 
mittee confining itself to the recommendation that both drills should take place "after 
the ship has left the wharf on her voyage." 

2. Considering the practical side of that recommendation as I see it, and taking 
trans-Atlantic voyages as a base and, say, the port of New York as a point of departure, 
the baj and harbor of which are second to none in North America or northern Euroi)e 
forfacilities for holding such drills, I believe that to stop one of the large trans- Atlantic 
liners in that harbor or bay, even under the most favorable weatXiei eoTkdL\\\o\\a,\at ^^ 



10 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

purpose of holding drills, might prove a menace to navigation, not only to the ship 
on which such drills are held but to the vessels constantly navigating in the vicinity. 
Unfavorable wind and tide would necessitate much maneuvermg of the ship before 
being brought to a safe anchorage in order that drills be held. The same danger is 
afterwards present when maneuvering for a position to proceed to sea. The danger 
would be much greater in the event of unsettled weather or threatening mist or fog. 

3. It is essential to general safety that a ship proceed to sea with all consistent speed, 
after leaving her wharf, in order to avoid tne dangers incident to congested waters 
and possible unfavorable conditions arising, such as fo^, mist, snow, etc. 

4. Considering the North Atlantic Ocean after leavmg the United States or Europe 
as a suitable place for holding drills, I feel safe in saying that for months and 
months a ship ma^r traverse the Atlantic without having an opportunity for holding 
an efficient boat drill. The drills contemplated by the committee, as I understand it, 
are to consist of lowering the boats to the water and the necessary hoisting of them on 
board again. They might often be lowered to the water in unfavorable weather on 
the ocean, and passengers safely disembarked, but in all probability many of the boats 
would be seriously damaged in process of being again hoisted on board, and thus ren- 
dered unavailable on the passage in the event of actual necessity arising for their use 
for abandoning the ship. 

5. Another matter for consideration in connection with holding of boat drills at sea 
** after the ship has left the wharf on her voyage" is the danger of a panic due to the 
presence of a large number of foreign emigrants on board, who do not understand the 
official language spoken on board, and even if they are made to comprehend that the 
swinging out of the boats is for drills only, will not believe it. Several cases of a panic 
due to such drills at sea have been called to imy attention. 

6. Another consideration, although commercial and secondary, is worthy of atten- 
tion. The probable time required for boat drill "after the ship has left her wharf on 
her voyage" on one of the lame trans- Atlantic liners carrying, say, about 60 lifeboats, 
would be, according to weather conditions, from, say, two to nve hours, including 
rehoisting and securing of boats, and the question arises. Do conditions of the past or 
probable conditions in the future warrant this delay to tne traveling public and to the 
United States and foreign mails, and the attendant risk and danger as above outlined? 

The lesson learned from the most deplorable disaster known, in the loss of life due 
to the sinking of the Titanic ^ is that the loss of life, as I understand it, was not due to a 
lack of discipline or training in connection with the lowering and handling of lifeboats, 
but rather from an insufficient number of lifeboats to accommodate all passengers. 
Some of the boats of the Titanic, I understand, were not fully loaded, not because of a 
lack of training in their handling but because passengers would not go into those that 
first left the ship. 

I suggest, in connection with boat drills once each week, weather permitting, as 
already recommended, that all boats under davits be swung out at least once each 
month, and a number of thera lowered, so that all boats must have been in the water 
at least once in six months, the report of same to be. entered in the ship's log book. 

I also suggest for consideration that as all departments are to be drawn upon for boat 
hands, that each lifeboat of Class I should have efficient boat hands, as defined, equal, 
to 10 per cent of the number of persons the lifeboat is certified to carry; that is to say, 
a lifeboat certified for 50 persons would require five of that number to be efficient boat 
hands. 

7. I further suggest that section 9, on page 2, be amended in the first line, im- 
mediately following the word "certificate," by adding the words "of discharge," 
this certificate to be included in the current official "certificate of discharge," as 
now signed by the master, and who shall be the judge of efficiency of the boat hand, 
as he now is of the sailor's "character" and "capacity." 

Respectfully, * 

Henry M. Seeley, 
U. S. Supervising Inspector, Second District. 



Appendix. 



Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Navigation, 

Washington, June 7, 1913. 

Sir: The committee designated by the Hon. William C. Redfield, Secretary of 

Commerce, to collect information and submit a report to him upon "Efficiency of 

officers and crews" of merchant vessels for the use of the American delegation to the 

International Conference on Safety at Sea incloses a list of questions, and would be 

pleased to receive your views upon the subjects thus outlined. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 13 

I should like to have that letter made a part of the record at this 
point. 

Washington, D. C, October 6, 19 IS. 
Hon. Wm. C. Redfield, 

Secretary of Commerce^ Washington^ D, C. 

Dear Mr. Secretary: A report from the "Committee on efficiency of officers 
and crews, international conference on safety at sea," was submitted to you under 
date of September 13, 1913. 

This report is made up of recommendations which, if adopted, would to such an ex- 
tent lower the standard and skill that it is very difficult for me to understand how 
these recommendations could be made by men of experience. The question is one 
of promoting safety, and as I understand it, any expense within reason or any increase 
inmconveniences to shipowners is not to be permitted to stand in the way; such con- 
sideration should have httle weight because the expense is transmitted to the traveler, 
the shipper, and the general public, either through freight rates or insurance. It 
eeems to me there can be no excuse for any reduction in standards of skill which pro- 
mote safety from the existing standards set by law or the existing standards in daily 
practical experience to-day. 

The present legal standard of skill in the crew as found in the statutes and in de- 
cisions is: 

"The owner shall properly equip, man, and outfit said vessel, and make such vessel 
seaworthy and capable of perfomung her intended voyage." 

Amon^ other decisions tine case of: In re Pacific Mail Steamship Co. (C. C, v. 64, 
p. 410), 18 cited as comparatively recent and upheld by the Supreme Court. In this 
case the court refused to grant the benefit of limited liabDity to the company because 
the crew was inefficient. The present presumption of law is that all the men shall be 
sufficiently skilled to understand and olbey all orders; the further presumption is that 
these obligations rest upon all shipowners without regard to whether the vessel carries 
passengers or not; the law and the decisions alike take cognizance of the obvious fact 
that when two vessels meet it requires proper skill on board both to avoid a collision. 
The difficulty with the present situation is that the statute law of our country sets no 
definite standard of skill; it is a matter of decisions of the courts, each one restmg upon 
testimony given by survivors; the gradual drift from the sea on the part of men of 
strength and skill has caused a gradual lowering of the practical standard. Up to the 
middle of the last century the laws and customs alike conspired to make it the ship- 
owner's own vital interest to have the best men that could be obtained. The develop- 
ment of the present system of insurance and the adoption of the limited liability 
laws have resulted in a fundamental change in the shipowner's interest and therefore 
in his point of view. 

The statute law imposes no standard of skill and the shipowners may therefore, 
except in the case of licensed officers^ send their vessels to sea with men void of both 
experience and knowledge of the officers' language; yet with all this the traditions 
ana customs that have grown up under former conditions are dying slowly and ves- 
sels as a i^eneral rule have several men who are not only called able seamen, but who 
in experience and skill are really such; men trained under other and better conditions 
than the present are still obtainable to some considerable extent and are employed. 

The recommendations of your committee seem to be based upon a paragraph 
Quoted from a report made by the British committee on boats and davits to the effect 
that strict discipline and obedience are essential (in the crew). The crew must be 
able to understand and carry out the orders is the ruling of the courts; strict disci- 
pline and obedience is made the prereq^uisite in the recommendations by the British 
committee quoted and indorsed in this report; discipline is the ability to under- 
stand the orders and execii^te them; it is a result of training and experience and the 
question arises What training, how long experience? Germany answers — four years 
at sea; the English, the Australian, and the New Zealand laws answer — three years 
at sea; the British and Norwegian commissions recommend three years at sea. 
The lately adopted laws and the recommendations by commissions take cognizance 
of the change from sail to steam. The law in Great Britain was made three years 
at sea as a result of investigation and discussion running over more t^n 20 years. 
This law of Great Britain is ineffective in this that while it sets a standard it does not 
compel the shipowner to carry any specified number of such men ; the law having left 
this to the discretion of the board of trade. 

The standard of efficiency recommended by your committee is the standard set for 
the man to be known as a "boat hand." 

''The boat hand shall be a man trained in the lunging, lowering, detaching, and 
the h&ndling of boats and the use of oars, and shall have eetve^ ^V\«&fiX. c!»tl<& ^^».^ ^^ 
veaBels navigatiDg the ocean, bays, sounds, or large inlaiid eeaa OT\ay«a.^^ 



12 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

ni. STANDARD TESTS — RENEWAL OF LICENSES.^ 

In your judgment, should the same requLements for visicn and hearing be pre- 
scribed for the renewal of licenses as for the issue of original licenses? 

IV. STANDARD TESTS — LOOKOUTS, ETC.* 

In view of their important work, lookout men, steersmen, and quartermasters under 
the law of several countries are subjected to medical tests for color sense and vision. 

(a) In your judgment, should seamen serving as lookout men, steersmen, and 
quartermasters be subjected to tests for color sense and hearing by medical officers 
of the United States Public Health Service and certificates thereof be furnished? 

(6) Should the tests for color sense and hearing be the same as for licensed officers? 

(c) Should tests for acuteness of vision of lookout men, steersmen, and quarter- 
masters be made without glasses, since it is not their custom or practice to wear them? 

(d) Would a requirement of 20/30 vision in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye with- 
out glasses be a fair test? (The test mentioned means that at 20 feet the candidate 
is able to read with one eye that which the normal eye should read at 30 feet. With 
the other eye the candidate must be able to read at 20 feet what the normal eye should 
read at 40 feet.) 

V. POSSIBLE EXTENSION OP STANDARD TESTS.* 

Would you favor reqmring all seamen of the deck department to be tested for vision, 
color sense, and hearing, the tests in these cases to be the same standard as for licensed 
officers; the testing for color sense in all cases to be made with the Holmgren worsteds, 
as prescribed in the regulations of the United States Public Health Service? 

It provides for boats and rafts. It further provides a definition of 
boat nands, as it is called here, boatmen, men to handle the boats, 
and the definition given here is ^^An efficient boat hand shall be a 
man trained in the laimching, lowering, detaching, and handling of 
boats and the use of oars and shall also have served at least one year 
on vessels navigating the ocean, bays, sounds, or large inland seas 
or lakes." 

This, of course, leaves it so that he may have served that one year 
as a steward or a coal passer. 

9. The efficient boat hand shall have a Grovemment certificate as such, which shall 
be recognized by other Grovemments reciprocally. 

10. Asiatics may be certificated as efficient boat hands, provided they meet the pre- 
scribed standard and also can imderstand and answer the orders of the officers relating 
to lifeboat service and duties. 

I took this and analvzed it to the best of my abiUty, trying to Show 
that such a boat hand as that was utterly inefficient. The best that 
possibly could be got out of a man of that description would be that 
ne had been on board of a vessel when the boats had been lowered, 
24 times, assuming they were lowered once every trip forward and 
backward across the Atlantic. He would probably have been present 
at the lowering not more than 12 times, because going across the 
Atlantic you can not always lower the boats. The probabilities are, 
nay, the certainty is, he has not had experience in the lowering — 
that is, in the actual handhng of the tackle — more than four or five 
times. 

After examining the whole thing, I closed my letter to the Secretary 
as follows : 

I am loath to believe that any man with any real practical knowledge of the sea 
and its dangers would ever make any such recommendations or accept them as in- 
structions. 



1 In case any candidate fails in the examination for color sense, he may be allowed a second examina- 
tion upon the request of the proper officers. The Williams lantern for testing color sense, or some other 
lantern of equal merit, may be used for the second test. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 18 

I should like to have that letter made a part of the record at this 
point. 

Washington, D. C, October 6, 191S. 
Hon. Wm. C. Redfield, 

Secretary of Commerce, Washington^ D. C. 

Dear Mr. Secretary: A report from the ** Committee on efficiency of officers 
and crews, international conference on safety at sea,*' was submitted to you under 
date of September 13, 1913. 

This report is made up of recommendations which, if adopted, would to such an ex- 
tent lower the standard and skill that it is very difficult for me to understand how 
these recommendations could be made by men of experience. The question is one 
of promoting safety, and as I understand it, any expense within reason or any increase 
iamconveniences to shipowners is not to be permitted to stand in the way; such con- 
sideration should have httle weight because the expense is transmitted to the traveler, 
the shipper, and the general public, either through freight rates or insurance. It 
•m fleems to me there can be no excuse for any reduction in s&ndards of skill which pro- 
iii mote safety from the existing standards set by law or the existing standards in daily 
ul(j practical experience to-day. 

The present legal standard of skill in the crew as found in the statutes and in de- 
cisions is: 

"The owner shall properly equip, man, and outfit said vessel, and make such vessel 
seaworthy and capable of performing her intended voyage." 

Amon^ other decisions tine case of: In re Pacific Mail Steamship Co. (C. C, v. 64, 
p. 410), IS cited as comparatively recent and upheld by the Supreme Court. In this 
case the court refused to grant the benefit of limited liaoility to the company because 
the crew was inefficient. The present presumption of law is that all the men shall be 
sufficiently skilled to understand and obey all orders; the fujrther presumption is that 
these obligations rest upon all shipowners without regard to whether the vessel carries 
passengers or not; the law and the decisions alike take cognizance of the obvious fact 
that when two vessels meet it rec[uires prbper skill on board both to avoid a collision. 
The difficulty with the present situation is that the statute law of our country sets no 
definite standard of skill; it is a matter of decisions of the courts, each one restmg upon 
testimony given by survivors; the gradual drift from the sea on the part of men of 
strength and skill has caused a gradual lowering of the practical standard. Up to the 
middle of the last century the laws and customs alike conspired to make it the ship- 
owner's own vital interest to have the best men that could be obtained . The develop- 
ment of the present system of insurance and the adoption of the limited liability 
laws have resulted in a fundamental change in the shipowner's interest and therefore 
in his point of view. 

The statute law imposes no standard of skill and the shipowners may therefore, 
except in the case of licensed officers, send their vessels to sea with men void of both 
experience and knowledge of the officers' language; yet with all this the traditions 
and customs that have grown up under former conditions are dying slowly and ves- 
sels as a general rule have several men who are not only called able seamen, but who 
in experience and skill are really such; men trained under other and better conditions 
than the present are still obtainable to some considerable extent and are employed. 
The recommendations of your committee seem to be based upon a paragraph 
Quoted from a report made by the British committee on boats and davits to the effect 
that strict discipline and obedience are essential (in the crew). The crew must be 
able to understand and carry out the orders is the ruling of the courts; strict disci- 
pline and obedience is made the prereq^uisite in the recommendations by the British 
committee quoted and indorsed in this report; discipline is the ability to under- 
stand the orders and execu^te them; it is a result of training and experience and the 
question arises What training, how long experience? Germany answers — four years 
at sea; the Eng[lish, the Australian, and the New Zealand laws answer — three years 
at sea; the British and Norwegian commissions recommend three years at sea. 
The lately adopted laws and the recommendations by commissions take cognizance 
of the chai^ m>m sail to steam. The law in Great Britain was made three years 
at sea as a result of invest^tion and discussion running over more than 20 years. 
This law of Great Britain is ineffective in tliis that while it sets a standard it does not 
compel the shipowner to carry any specified number of such men ; the law having left 
this to the discretion of the board of trade. 

The standard of efficiency recommended by your committee is the standard set for 
the man to be known as a '* boat hand." 

''The boat hand shall be a man trained in the lunging, lowering, detaching, and 
the han dling of boats and the use of oars, and shall have served at least one year on 
vessels navigating the ocean, bays, sounds, or large inland eeaa oi \a.\L»&.^^ 



14 SA^J^TY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

The drill shall take place ''as a general rule once a week.'' 

Let me try to illustrate this by using a trans- Atlantic liner; the liner makes about 12 
trips a year; if the men remain with the vessel during a year — something almost un- 
heard of — your efficient boat hand will have witnessed and perhaps participated in 
24 boat drills. We know this to be a practical impossibility because the conditiong 
of weather and sea in the Atlantic would make it so full of diuiger that the boats ought 
not to be lowered except to save life. Let us assume that this man has been in a boat 
on the ocean 12 times. He has helped to swing it out 24 times and he may have done 
the real lowering perhaps 6 times. Real experts would not consider such men to be 
entitled to the rating of ordinary seamen, far less that of able seamen. Yet he is to 
have a ** certificate from the Grovemment. " There is no provision for actual test 
of this man's ability and the report of one member of the committee su^ests to add 
after the word ** certificate" the words "of discharge"; so that the certificate will be 
nothing more or less than the ordinary certificates of discharge issued by the master 
at this time and dependent purely upon his discretion, his likes or dislike of the man 
to whom it is given. If your committee had taken the worst manned vessel as a stand- 
ard their recommendations would have been better than this. These boat hands may 
come from the deck, the fireroom, the engine room, the kitchen, or the saloon. The 
recommendations are three for each boat, one of whom is to be an officer or petty offi- 
cer, that is to say, the person in charge of the boat may be an engineer, an oiler, a 
water tender, a chief steward — anybody with authority in any department of the 
vessel. A fireman coming from the heat of the fireroom with scant clothings his 
pores open from the heat, is to go at once into a boat on the open ocean in the North 
Atlantic in the winter. How long will he last? The same applies to the engineer 
and the men conaing from the sheltered saloon, though with less force. What are real 
experts to think of such rules as improving upon the present condition and for the 
purpose of promoting safety at sea? roliteness will induce them to cover their mouths 
with their hands. 

One member of yoiur committee criticizes the proposition to stop the vessel after 
she has left the dock and to train the men in abandoning vessels. His criticism is so 
obviously just and sensible that nothing said by me could improve upon it. Your 
conunittee further recommends rafts for some of the passengers and crew and such raft 
is to have one such efficient boat hand in charge thereof. One wonders who are to go 
on the rafts. Presumably such of the crew as are not efficient boat hands and some 
steerage passengers. The men who have not been long enough at sea to be efficient 
boat hands as defined by your committee, and the men from the steerage may not be 
willing to do this. They have absorbed none of the ethics or traditions of sea life 
and more than likely it would be a question of who is the stronger. And the action 
might be based upon not women and children first, but me first. Let the devil take 
the hindmost. 

I am loath to believe that any man with any real practical knowledge of the sea 
and its dangers would ever make any such recommendations or accept them as in- 
structions. 

Most respectfully and faithfully, yours, 

Andrew Furuseth. 

I delivered that letter in person at the Secretary's office. 

The Secretary informed me that the instructions were but tentative- 
and that they were suggestions to be considered and acted upon by 
the Qommission itself as a commission, and on October 7 he repeated 
this assurance to the (commission in its meetiiig. 

I was in grave doubt as to whether I ought not to ask the President 
to withdraw my appointment because from my information from 
Europe relative to men that would serve on the Conference of Safety 
of Liie at Sea and the influence at work I feared that the conference 
would be dominated by the shipowning interests. 

In considering the tentative instructions I found they were at 
variance with the House action on the seamen's bill, August 3, 1912, 
and the joint recommendation by the Secretaries of Commerce and 
Labor upon the La Follette seamen's bill, dated April 17, 1913, and 
known as Senate Document 211, Sixty- third Congress, first session. 
The tentative instructions were of a later date and might be accepted 
by our commission. 



i 






.a 

If. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 16 

i However, on the 23d of October the Senate passed the La FoUette 
i seamen's bill which defines the able seaman as one who has had at 
least three years' experience on deck at sea or on the Grea,t Lakes; 
it provided for seaworthy lifeboats for all persons on board and that 
in the crew of each hfeboat there must be at least two able seamen 
or men of higher rating; and I then assumed that our commission 
would accept the position of the Senate as their real instructions to 
the conference. With this thought in mind I accepted the appoint- 
ment, because I assumed that our commission, appointed by the 
United States, would look upon the Senate's action, being the latest 
of all the actions, as being binding upon them. I founa, however, 
this to be different later. 

Just before leaving for London I received from the Commissioner 
of Navigation three documents marked ^^Confidential," which I will 
leave with the committee. Thev are entitled : 

'^ International conference safety of life at sea; summary of pro- 
visional conclusions reached at preliminary and informal discussions 
between German and British delegates, June, 1913." 

"International conference oil safety of life at sea; English trans- 
lation of the summary of the provisional conclusions reached at 
preliminary and informal discussions between French and British 
delegates, June-July, 1913." 

"Memorandum concerning the positions of the German Imperial 
Government on the question of safety of the ocean passenger trade." 

Senator Williams. When was that meeting held ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. It was held in June* and the conference was 
called for November 12. The second was a similar preliminary 
conference, but held by France and England through delegates. 

Senator Hitchcock. When was that held ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. In June and July, 1913. 

[Strictly confidential.] 
Appendix — Internattional Conference on Safety of Life at Sea. 

9 

SUMMARY OF THE PROVISIONAL CONCLUSIONS REACHED AT PRELIMINARY AND INFORMAL 
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN GERMAN AND BRITISH DELEGATES IN JUNE, 1913. 

Object of the conference. — It was agreed that, so far as Germany and Great Britain 
were concemed, the object of the conference might be expressed in the following 
formula: 

'"Hie conference is convened for the purpose of bringing about agreement between 
the aleatory States with reference to the conditions necessary for safety to be laid 
down in the case of passenger steamships and with reference to other measures in the 
interests of the safety of maritime passenger traffic, with a view to each State passing 
into law ttie decisions of the conference so far as concerns its own flag, with a view to 
national certificates being issued in each country to national ships after compliance 
with the decisions of the conference, and with a view to the establishment in each of 
the signatory States a system of control which, as regards the ships of other signatory 
States, would in all cases, except cases of evident unseaworthiness or of evident and 
serious defects, be limited to verifying the presence on board of valid certificates of 
survey.** 

In view of the opinion expressed by the British del^ates that it would be unde- 
flinkble to include so precise a declaration in the invitations sent to the other powers, 
it was agreed that in wese invitations the object of the conference should be expressed 
ae f oUowa: 

"It would be the object of the conference to endeavor to bring about agreement 
among the participating States with reference to the conditions necessary tor safety 
to belaid down in the case of passenger steamships and with reference to other meas- 
ures in the interests of the safety of maritime passenger traffic. In the event of such 



16 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

agreement being arrived at and embodied in a convention each sanatory State would 
be responsible for giving legislative and administrative effect to the provisions of that 
convention and issuing the necessary certificates to its national ships which comply 
with those provisions. The conference would further deal with the conditions under 
which certificates so issued should be accepted as valid by the other signatory States." 
Program. — The following program for the conference was provisionally agreed to on 
the understandLag that it might require amendment as a result of the proposed dis- 
cussions with France and the United States. 

PROGRAM. 

I. International uniformity. — ^The principles which should ^vem the reciprocal 
acceptance, by each of the Governments represented, of certificates and standards 
issued or laid down by the other Governments relating to safety of life at sea. 

II. Safety of construction. — ^The principles which ehould be laid down as regards 
bulkheads and subdivision into water-tight compartments; and the question as to 
what j)rinciples can be laid down so as to secure that vessels shall, as regards hull, 
machinery and equipments, be fit for the service intended. 

III. Life-saving apvliances. — ^The principles to be enforced with regard to life- 
saving appliances to oe carried, the types of boats and other life-saving appliances 
to be accepted, and the arrangements for surveying, stowing, launching, and r^dlii^ 
the boats and other appliances. 

IV. Safety of navigation. — ^The principles to be adopted with regard to the control 
of navigation and safety warnings, including wireless telegraphy, signals, assistance 
to ships in distress, warnings as to ice and derelicts, steamship routes, etc. 

Countries to he invited to the conference. — No additions were made to the list of 14 
countries which had already been drawn up. The German delegates, however, ex- 
pressed the opinion that the British self-governing dominions might with advantage 
be included, and the British delegates promised that this question would be considered. 

Countries not represented at the conference should be at liberty to adhere to any 
agreement arrived at. 

Position and powers of the delegates. — The question of the position and powers of the 
delegates was left to be dealt with through the diplomatic channel. 

The languajge of the conferenjce. — ^The question as to the language to be used at the 
conference was left to be dealt with through the diplomatic channel. 

Subcommittees. — It was thought that matters of general principle would be deall 
with by the full conference, and that subcommittees would be necessary to deal with 
the following questions: (1) Safety of construction; (2) life-saving appliances; (3) 
safety of navigation, including wireless telegraphy. 

Another subcommittee might be required for the establishment of the contem- 
plated system of certificates. The question, however, is one of procedure, which 
must be left for the conference to decide. 

The control of the execution of the decisions of the conference in t?ie signatory States.— 
It should be laid down in precise terms that the certificates are issued under the 
responsibility of the Government of the country to which the ship belong, and thai 
the Government accepts the responsibility for seeing that the ship complies with.the 
conditions stated in the certificate while the certificate remains in force. , 

The duration of the certificate should be limited to one year, but arrangeiqente 
should be made for a slight extension when the certificate lapses during the cours^f a 
voyage. t<^' 

The general question, whether proceedings should be instituted in the ^rts of one 
State against ships of another State for noncompliance with +he resolutions of the 
conference, appears to be one of g^eat difficulty owing to differences in the Law oi 
different countries and it might be inconvenient to raise it at the conference. 

The communication of material to the countries invited to the conference. — ^This question 
was left to be settled through the diplomatic channel. 

Vessels to which the resolutions of the conference shall apply. — ^The question as to whai 
classes of vessels should be covered by the resolutions of the conference, and as to the 
position of any classes of vessels which are not so covered, was left to be decided by 
the conference. 

Leading principles of the safety regulations to be laid down by the conference. — (a) 
Bulkheads and suodivision into vjater-tight compartments. — It was not possible to discusf 
this cjuestion at any length as the British bulkheads committee has not concluded itc 
inquiry. It was agreed, however, that such principles as the conference finds it 
possible to lay down on this most important matter should be enforced uniformly in 
all the signatory States. 



•J 



>^' 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 17 

(h) Hull, machinery, and equipments. — It would not be practicable to formulate 
detailed regulations in regard to hull, machinery, and equipments, but general priuci- 
' pies governing the survey of passenger vessels m regard to these matters were drawn 
up. (See Appendix I.) 

(c) Life-saving appliances. — Accommodation in lifeboats, or their equivalent, sup- 
plemented in certain cases and under certain conditions by life rafts must be pro- 
vided for all persons. 

The British life-saving applicancea rules and the proposed German life-saving 
appliances rules were compared, and the conclusions arrived at are set out in Appen- 
dix II. 

(d) Manning of boats. — There must be a sufficient number of efficient boat hands 
to man the boats. No definite scale, was drawn up, and no decision as to the proper 

-' basis for such a scale was arrived at. It appears, however, that a scale for this purpose 
could be based upon thp number of passengers carried, or on the number of boats, or 
OD a combination of the two. 

The governments which are parties to the international convention shall be responsi- 
ble for securing that the men certified as boat hands are efficient and competent to 
handle boats. 

(e) Boat drill. — Boat drill must be carried out at frequent intervals, and a record pf 
each drill must be entered in the log book. The crew must be organized for lowering 
the boats and for marshaling the passengers to the boats. 

Derelicts, ice, and other dangers to navigation. — (a) The destruction of derelicts. — If the 
Question of cooperating with the United States Government in the work of destroying 
aereUcts is raised, it is probable that Germany and Great Britain will not decline to 
render assistance. 

(6) The arrangements for collecting information in regard to ice, derelicts, etc. — The 
establishment oi a central station for the collection and distribution of information in 
regard to ice, derelicts, etc., is in principle desirable, but it was not found possible, 
at the moment, to agree upon a definite scheme. 

(c) Ice observation. — If circumstances show that a continuation and extension of the 
work of ice observation of the kind imdertaken bj^ the Scotia is desirable the German 
Government are willing to cooperate in regard to it. 

The compulsory fitting of wireless telegraphy on passenger and steam ships. — (a) Ves- 
sels to be fitted. — Considerable difference exists between the German and British pro- 
posals with regard to the vessels to be fitted. Even with the removal of the British 
tonnage limit, it was not found possible to agree as to the number of persons which 
would constitute a ship as a ship which should be fitted with wireless telegraphy. 

(6) Staff for working the apparatus and the nature of the attendance. — Tne British 
proposals on this head we^e regarded by the German delegates as inconsistent with 
the radio telegraphic convention. It was agreed that any resolution of the interna- 
tional conference on this matter must have regard to the terms of that convention. 
Further efforts will be made both in Germany and Great Britain to devise a satisfac- 
tory scheme which is consistent with the convention. 

Speed in the neighborhood of ice. — Having regard to the provisions of article 29 of the 
collision regulations, the insertion in those regulations of a special clause as to the 
speed of vessels in the immediate vicinity of ice is neither necessary nor desirable. 

Wireless distress signal. — ^There is no objection in principle to the inclusion of the 
int ^national wireless distress signal in the list of distress signals contained in article 31 
of t collision regulations. 

i livate signals. — Private signals containing rockets or Roman candles are undesir- 
able, as they are liable to be mistaken for signals of distress. 

Searchlights. — Up to the present experience has not shown that it is desirable to 
fit ships \\'ith searchlights for navigation purposes. 

Binoculars for lookout men. — In general the use of binoculars for lookout men is not 
desirable. 

Ocean steamship routes. — The selection of the routes should be left to the shipping 
t^pmpanies, as at present. The question of inducing by governmental influence out- 
side shipping companies to follow the establislied routes was raised, but no decision 
'fas arrived at. 

Obligation to render assistance to a ship in distress. — In view of the terms of the Brus- 
sels maritime conventions, some fresh provisions may have to be laid down to deal 
vith the case of a vessel which receives a signal of distress by wireless telegraphy 
from a ship at a considerable distance. These provisions might be on the- following 
lines: 

38444—14 2 



li 



3: 



18 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

(1) Every vessel which hears a call for assistance by wireless telegraphy is under a 
general obligation to go to the assistance of the vessel in distress. 

(2) If, however, the master does not consider it reasonable or necessary under the 
special circumstances of the case to go to the assistance of the vessel in distress, he 
ahall enter in the log book his reasons for not doing so. 

The question will also have to be raised as to whether there should not be a pro- 
vision to the effect that failure to render assistance shall not afford to the owners of 
the distreased vessel a right to sue tor civil damages. 

Trnriidtional period. — There must be a i>eriod of transition before full effect can be 
given to the resolutions of the conference, especially as regards bulkheads and boats. 

Appendix I. 

HULL, MACHINERY, AND EQUIPMENTS, 

(a) A complete inspection of the whole of the hull, machinery, and equipments, 
including the outside of the vessel's bottom and the inside of the boilers must be 
made, by surveyors appointed by the Government, at least once a year. The Govern- 
ment must be responsible for the competency of the surveyors and that the survey iB 
thoroiigh and complete. 

(6) The deai^, scantlings, material, and condition of the hull, main and auxiliary 
machinery, boilers and boiler mountings must be to the satisfaction of the surveyors 
and sufficient for the service intended. 

(c) The boilers and steam pipes must be satisfactorily tested, when new, to doubl© 
the working pressure, and after five years' use at least once in every five years to at 
least one and one-half times the working pressure. 

In cases in which a test to double the working pressure is objected to for new boilers, 
a lower test may be accepted provided it is not below one and one-half times th© 
intened working pressure and is repeated annually.* 

(d) The equipments must be to the satisfaction of the surveyors. 

(e) The anchors and cables must be, as resards their weights, sizes and condition, 
to the satisfaction of the surveyors and have been subjected to satisfactory proof tests. 

(/) The spaces occupied by the passengers must be suitable for their accommoda- 
tion and to the satisfaction of the surveyors. 

(g) The certificate of survey (to be agreed upon) must cover the items enumerated 
above. The certificate must state the time for which it is to remain in force, which 
shall in no case exceed 12 months from the completion of the survey of any part of 
the vessel. 

Appendix II. 

LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES. 

Types of boats, etc. — (a) Collapsible boats. — ^Boats the body of which requires to b© 
adjusted prior to launcning should not be allowed as psurt of the life-saving appliances 
on ships after a date to be determined. 

(6) Semicollapsible 6oate.— Great improvements have been made, and are still 
being made, in this class of boats, and good types of semicollapsible boats have a 
hfeh value. 

(c) Square-stemed boats. — Square-sterned boats fitted with the buoyancy prescribed 
for lifeboats may, when they are allowed to be carried, be reckoned as lifeooats. 

(d) Motor boats. — ^The carriage of motor boats should remain optional, but the 
number carried should be limited. 

(e) Depth of boats. — For the purpose of determining the cubic capacity of a boat 
no greater depth than 4 feet may be taken into account, unless the case has been 
specially considered and determined. 

(/) Life ra ts. — Life rafts of approved type and construction may be allowed in 
certain cases and under certain conditions. 

The following draft rules, showing the value to be assigned to different types of 
boats and the space to be provided for each person, were accei)ted, in principle, 
as a basis for discussion at the international conference. But it is understood that 
the full requirements can not be put into oi)eration at once on all existing ships, and 
tiiat a carefully worded exemption clause will be required. It will also be necessary 
to provide for the acceptance of equivalent forms of apparatus which may be invented 
in the future. 



I This formula as to the periodic testing of boilers and steam pipes is at present provisional. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 



DRAFT RULES. 



19 



I. Types of^ boats to he accepted under the rules. — For the purposes of these rules boats 
shall be classified ^ as follows: 

Class J.^— Open lifeboats with internal buoyancy only. (Sec. A.) Open lifeboats 
with internal and external buoyancy. (Sec. B.) Decked lifeboats of improved 
type. (See, for example, clause 94 of the report of the British boats and davits com- 
mittee.) 

Class II. — Decked lifeboats of old type (Engelhardt). Improved Chambers's boat 
(old German type) having about 9-inch freebow^ and copper buoyancy tanks. 

Class III. — Ordinary open boats. (Sec. D.) 

Class IV. — Chambers's boat of old type. 

II. Fomiy capacity J and number of persons. — (a) Open lifeboats (sec. A and sec. B). — 
The capacity snail be determined by Stirling's rule, using three sections besides the 
stem and the stem post and four ordinates at each section besides the keel. 

Number of persons for section A boat = capacity in cubic feet divided by 10. 

Number of persons for section B boat= capacity in cubic feet divided by 9. 

In boats with verjr fine ends the number of persons will be limited by a formula 
depending on the ratio of the mean middle ordinate of the end sections to the breadth 
of the boat. 

The number of persons allowed for a section A boat must not exceed — - ^ ^ 



and the number allowed for a section B boat must not exceed 



LXBXDXK 



10 
the value 



of the constant -K" being found by trial. It is expected that it will be about 0.7. 

(6) Decked boats of me British type {Engelhardt). — ^The number of persons shall be 
determined in the following manner: 

If the freeboard, stability, and effective depth of the boat are suflficient, the area 
of the deck in sauare feet divided by 4 gives tJie number of persons to be allowed. 
Special rules will be necessary to provide for cases in which the freeboard, stability, 
or effective deptih would not be such as to admit of this number of persons being 
carried with saiety. 

(c) Chambers^ s boats of improved type. — ^The number of persons should not depend, 
as at present, on the depth measured to the top of the canvas, but on the depth to 
the top of the solid hull, and should be such as to give about 9 inches freeboard in a 
28-foot boat. The number of cubic feet per person will be settled by trial. 

((f) Children. — Two children under 12 shall be counted as one adult. 

III. Boats to be provided.— {!) Davits must be provided in accordance with the fol- 
lowing scale, each set of davits having a lifeboat of class 1 attached: 

The davits shall be sufficiently strong to allow of the boats being lowered with their 
full complements of persons if necessary. 



V 



Registered length of vessel 
in feet. 


Minimum 

number 

of sets of 

davits. 


Minimum 

number 

of open 

boats. 


Registered length of vassel 
in feet. 


Minimum 

number 

of sets of 

davits. 


Minimum 

number 

of open 

boats. 


Underieo 


2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
12 


2 
3 
4 
4 
5 
5 
6 
7 

4 

9 


4fiO ftn(i iiTidftr 520 ......:.. 


14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
24 
26 
28 
30 


10 


160 and under 190 


520 and under 580 


12 


190 and tinder 220 


5J^ and under 640 


13 


220 and under 245 


640 and under 700 


14 


315 and under 270 


700 and under 760 


15 


270 and under 300 


760 and under 820 


17 


80O and under 330 


820 and under 890 


18 


330 and under 370 


890 and under 960. » . 


19 


370 and under 410 


960 and under 1.030 


20 


410 and under 460 











The number of open lifeboats attached to davits must not be less than that given 
in the third column of the above scale. 

(2) If the lifeboats attached to the davits do not provide accommodation for all 
penons, additional lifeboats shall be carried of such number and capacity that the 
total capacity of the lifeboats attached to davits and the additional lifeboats is not 

I When finally settled the classification will not moition the names of Individual makes, but will be 
framed in general terms. 



20 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

less thsin that given in the following table.* The additional lifeboats may be eit 
of Class I or Class II. 

(3) If the before-mentioned lifeboats do not provide accommodation for at least 
per cent of the persons, then additional lifeboats of either Class I or Class II shall 
provided, so that there is accommodation for at least 75 per cent of all persons. 

(4) Accommodation shall be provided either in lifeboats of Classes I or II (or, U 
a temporary measure, boats of Class III) or by rafts for all persons. 

(5) When at least 4 lifeboats are required, 1 on each side may be of the square- 
sterned type; and when at least 10 lifeboats are required, 2 on each side may be off 
the square-sterned type. 

(6) The number and capacity of lifeboats need in no case be greater than is suf- 
ficient to accommodate all persons. 

(7) Chambers's boats of the old type (as used in British vessels), having only 3 
inches freeboard and no air-tight compartments, shall not be allowed in vessels 
launched after March 1, 1913, but it may be accepted in existing vessels instead ol 
rafts. 

(8) Boats, the body of which requires to be adjusted prior to launching, shall not 
be allowed as part of the life-saving equipment after a date to be determined. 

Equipment of boats. — In tlie case of vessels trading in the North Atlantic and fitted 
with wireless telegraphy it is not necessary to carry the same equipment of masts, 
sails, and compasses as is required in other trade. 

Stowage of boats. — All boats which are not attached to davits (or other approved 
appliances) shall be so stowed that they can be brought up to, and attached to, the 
davits (or other approved appliances) as readily as may be practicable. 

Appliances for launching boats. — Each Government should be empowered to approve 
and accept as an alternative to davits any appliances which are as effective as davits. 

The davits, or appliances for loweiing boats, shall be fitted on one or more of the 
decks in such positions that the boats can be efl^ciently lowered from them. Davits 
shall not be fitted in the bows of a ship, but they may be fitted in any other position 
in the ship, provided that the boats are not brought into dangerous proximity to » 
propeller on being lowered into the water. 

nTiere boats are stowed on more than one deck, the arrangements for lowering 
them shall be such as to prevent the boats from a lower deck being fouled by those 
from a deck above. 

Lighting of the boat deck. — In view of the diversity of professional opinion in regard 
to this question, governmental action is at present undesirable. 

Life jackets for children. — A sufiicient proportion of the life jackets carried shall 
be of a size suitable to children. 

[Confidential.] 

In^^ernational Conference on Safety of Life at Sea. 

[English translation of the summary of the provisional conclusions reached at preliminary and informa 

discussions between French and British delegates, June-July, 1913.] 

Object of the conference. — It was agreed that the following formula might be em- 
ployed in the letters of invitation to the conference in order to indicate in a genera^ 
way the object of the conference: 

" It would be the object of the conference to endeavor to bring about an agreement 
among the participating States with reference to the conditions necessary for safety 
to be laid down in the case of passenger steamships and with reference to other meas- 
ures in the interests of safety of maritime passenger traffic. In the event of sucb 
agreement being arrived at and embodied in a convention, each signatory State would 
be responsible for giving legislative and administrative effect to the provisions o* 
the convention, and issuing the necessary certificates to its national ships which 
comply with these provisions. The conference would further deal with the condi- 
tions under which certificates so issued should be accepted as valid by the othet 
signatory States." 

Program for the conference. — It was agreed that the following program, which is » 
shortened version of the preliminary program forwarded by the British Government 
some months ago, might be sent out with the letters of invitation in order to indicate 
the nature of the subjects to be discussed: 

1 This table has not yet been prepared, but it will be based upon the average capacity of the boats to b€ 
placed under davits, an open boat and a decked boat being placed imder the davits specified in the third 
column of the above scale, and three decked boats under the remaining sets of davits required by the 
second column of the above scale. 




SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 21 

International uniformity. — The principles which should govern the reciprocal 
*^ince by each of the Govemmenta represented of certificates and standards issued 
down by other Governments relating to safety of life at sea. 

^ety of construction. — The principles which should be laid down as regards 
and subdivision into water-tight compartments; and the question as to 
ciples can be laid down so as to secure that vessels shall, as regards hull, 
', and equipments, be fit for the service intended. 

(III) Life-saving appliances. — ^The principles to be enforced with regard to life-saving 
^1 appliances to be carried, the types of boats and other life-saving appliances to be 

accepted, and the arrangements for surveying, stowing, launching, and handling the 
boats and other appliances. 

(IV) Safety of navigation. — The principles to be adopted with regard to the control 
of navigation, and saiety warnings, inc^luding wireless telegraphy, signals, assistance 
to ships in distress, warnings as to ice and derelicts, steamship routes, etc. 

It was recognized that it would not be possible to bind the conference beforehand, 
but it is desirable that the discussions should be kept within manageable limits, and 
it was therefore agreed that a clause might be inserted in the letters of invitation to the 
effect that the program had been drawn up in order to cover the subjects to be raised 
at the conference. 

The position and powers of the delegates at the conference. — The French and British 
delegates were not authorized to bind their Governments with regard to this matter, 
but they found that they were in agreement in the opinion that the international con- 
ference would be more Ukely to have a useful result if the delegates at the conference 
were granted full powers and that the conference should not merely be ad referendum. 

Execution of the decisions of the conference. — It is expected that the signatory States 
which ratify the conclusions arrived at by the conference will take the necessary 
r\ legislative and administrative measures for carrying into effect those decisions. Each 
Government will be responsible for the certificates which it delivers to the ships of its 
flag, during the time they are in force, and must see that the ship complies in every 
respect with the conditions stated in the certificate. 

Mutual Recognition of certificates. — It is expected that arrangements will be made 
whereby the signatory States will issue certificates to their national ships which will 
be recognized in the ports of the other signatory States, so that any ship which has a 
valid official certificate from the Government of its flag will be free from the inspection 
or interference in ports of the other signatory States, except in the case of evident 
unseaworthiness or of evident serious defects. 

Each Government will determine what surveyors will be emj)loyed for the purposes 
of the inspections on which these certificates are granted, provided that the Govern- 
ment accepts full responsibility for the survey and for the certificates. 

Subcommittees at the conference. — The appointment of subcommittees will naturally 
rest with the conference itself, but so far as can be seen at present it will probably be 
necessary to appoint the following subconmiittees at least: 

(1) International uniformity and general regulation. 

(2) Safety of construction. 

(3) Life-saving appliances. 

(4) Wireless telegraphy. 

(5) Safety of navigation. 
Wireless telegraphy. — (1) All ships engaged in international navigation which carry 

50 or more persons must be provided with a wireless telegraphy installation. 

Each contracting State may make regulations for the purpose of exempting from the 
above obligation such of its ships as are engaged on voj^ages of not more than 200 miles 
between two consecutive ports, if the route and conditions of the voyage are such that 
a wireless installation would be useless or unnecessary. 

(2) It is agreed in principle that passenger vessels of high speed and vessels carrying 
large numbers of passengers on long voyages should be included in the first class con- 
templated by the Radiotelegraphic Convention of London, 1912. 

)\liile recognizing that the actual limits to be fixed are a matter for further con- 
sideration at the conference, it is provisionally agreed that the following limits would 
form a suitable basis for discussion: 

(d\ An average speed of 15 knots. 

\h) Two hundred passengers and 500 nautical miles between two consecutive porta. 

(3) The radiotelegraphic installations on board should be (capable of transmitting 
by day, to an installation of the same kind as their own, signals which will be clearly 
perceptible under normal atmospheric conditions at a minimiun distance of 100 miles 
m the case of ships of the first class, and of 50 miles in the case of ships of the second 
class. 



22 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 



I 



(4) The emergency apparatus referred to in article 11 of the rules annexed to the 
International Radiotelegraphic Convention should be placed entirely in tibe upper 
portion of the ship (above tne highest complete deck). 

(5) This emergency apparatus is not req^uired in the case of ships in which the 
ordinary installation complies with the conditions of paragraph 3 above, and is situated 
entirely in the upper parts of the ship (above the highest complete deck). 

(6) The transmission of radiotelegraphic messages provided for in the foregoing 
article will be made in conformity witn the conclusions of the International Radio- 
telegraphic Convention of London and of the rules annexed to that convention, or in 
conformity with any other international agreement which may replace that con- 
vention in the future. 

(7) The installations contemplated by the above paragraphs will be tested before 
they are used for service purposes and must be operated at intervals. 

Vessels in distress. — The following rules were adopted in principle: 

(1) Every vessel in distress has the right to determine which of the ships respond- 
ing to its call is the best able to render assistance and to demand the assistance of 
that ship or ships. The ship or ships so selected are bound to proceed at full speed 
to the assistance of the persons in distress. 

(2) When a vessel has sent out by wireless telegraphy the signal of distress, the 
following ships are bound, as soon as they have received the signal, to proceed to the 
assistance of the persons in distress: 

(a) Every ship, whatever be the direction of its voyage, which is at a distance of 
not less than five hours' steaming at full speed from the persons in distress. 

(6) Every ship^ whatever be its distance from the persons in distress whose course 
would bring it within five hours' steaming at full speed from the persons in distress. 

These ships are relieved of this obligation as soon as the ship or ships selected by the 
vessel in distress have made known uiat they were obeying the call or as soon as one 
of the ships which has arrived at the place of the accident has made known that 
their assistance is no longer necessary. 

The actual fi^re of five hours mentioned in rule 2 will serve as a basis for discussion 
at the international conference, and it is desirable to add a further rule to the effect 
that, if a captain of a ship does not consider it reasonable or necessary under the 
special circumstances of the case to proceed to the assistance of the vessel in dis- 
tress, he should enter in the log book ids reasons for not doing so. 

International collision regulations. — (a) Article 16. — As these international regula- 
tions deal with collisions between ships, and as article 29 of the regulations indicates 
that all precautions must be taken which are required by the ordinary practice of 
seamen or by the special circumstances of the case, it is not considered necessary to 
add to article 16 a special provision requiring moderate speed in the neighborhood 
of ice. 

(6) Article SI. — It was agreed that the wireless distress signal should be added 
to the distress signals enumerated in this article. 

(c) A comprehensive rearrangement and revision of the international collision 
regulations had been prepared by the French delegation, and the British delegation 
promised that this revision would be most carefully considered by the board of trade. 
They fear, however, that if the general question of the international collision regula- 
tions were included in the program of the conference it would unduly prolong the 
labors of the conference, and they suggested that this important subject should be 
considered separately. 

Private signals. — It was agreed that all private signals which could be confused 
with the authorized distress signals should be forbidden. 

Measures to be taken to pr ovule for an emergency . — (1) The arrangements for launch- 
ing boats should be such that the boats can be lowered in the shortest possible time. 

(2) The boats must be manned by men trained in boat work. Each boat must 
be manned with a suflScient number of eflBcient boat hands, having regard to its size 
and character. 

(3) Boat drill and fire drill must be carried out at frequent intervals, in order to 
make the crew familiar with their stations and with their duties in such circumstances. 

(4) A scheme must be prepared in advance for each ship showing the duties to be 
performed in case of emergency, and suitable measures must be taken for making 
the oflicers and other members of the crew familiar with it. This scheme wifl 
indicate: 

(a) The precise nature of the alarm signal to be given for summoning the crew to 
their posts in case of emergency; 

(b) The exact nature of the duties to be performed by the oflScers and members of 
the crew; 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 23 

(c) The places in which the passengers are to assemble and the measures to be 
bken for assembling and controlling the passengers; 

(d) If officers are told off to superintend certain portions of the work or certain 
jctions of the ship or of the boats, their names and duties must be clearly indicated 
I. the scheme; . 

(e) A regular crew should be told off to each boat, and one person should be told 
ff to take charge of the boat. 

(5) The scheme prepared for each ship must be produced for the inspection of the 
tiipping authorities before the commencement of each voyage. 

Ice obstruction, derelicts, etc. — (1) It is desirable to establish international coopera- 
Lon for the purpose of discovering, watching, and indicating the position of ice. 

(2) The code used by the Scotia at present contains EngUsh terms to indicate baro- 
letric heights and temperatures. If vessels of other countries are added to the 
Jcotiay it will be necessary that the metric system should be employed. 

In any case tables showing barometric heights and temperatures in accordance with 
h.e metric system will be added to the present code. 

It was agreed that an addition should be made to the code used by the Scotia to cover 
lie case of derelicts. 

It was agreed in principle that all ships pro\dded with wireless apparatus should be 
>ound to make known the presence of any icebergs or derelicts they may encounter 
jid that ships should use a signal for this purpose. 

Warnings as to weather and dangers on the coast. — It is desirable to adopt for signals 
elating to these matters an organization such as that indicated in general terms in 
he following paragraph : 

"(I) Coast stations, and, where possible, the stations engaged in the periodic issue 
»f time signals (Radio telegraphic Convention of London, 1912), should send out such 
fvumings to navigators as are very urgent; in particular, sudden movements in the 
>OBition and form of fixed wrecks and landmark?. 

**The time signal stations will send out the warnings in question immediately after 
ihe time signal, in accordance with a scheme of distribution which remains to be 
ietermined. 

"(2) It is desirable to refer to the international meteorological committee the ques- 
tion of increasing the number of points whence meteorological messages can be sent 
t>y wireless telegraphy and of the best distribution of those points." 

Ocean routes. — The French delegatioh expressed very strongly the wish of the 
French Government that the passage over the Banks of Newfoundland should be for- 
bidden to fast passengers steamers during the active period of the fishing season. 

The British delegation fully recognized the strength of the reasons which prompted 
this proposal, but felt that the matter would be a difficult one to deal with compul- 
Borily or by l^islation. They promised, however, on behalf of the board of trade to 
communicate with the Briti^ lines crossing the Atlantic and place before them the 
"views expressed by the French Government. The French Government will be 
informed m due course of the result of these communications. 

As r^ards the general question of ocean steamship routes^ both delegations agreed 
that this was a matter which should be left to the companies concerned. 

Life-saving appliances. — ^The draft French rules were compared with the British 
xnles and the two sets of rules were found to be in very substantial agreement. The 
questions of principle which remained to be considered were: First, the points in 
yhich the French draft rules go beyond the British rules, namely, time for launch- 
ing boats, lighting, and ladders; second, the points in which the board of trade 
proposes to modify the British rules in consequence of the inquiries that have been 
made and the experience that has been gainea. 

(a) The paints %n which the French rules go beyond the British rules — Time for launch- 
big the boats. — It was agreed that the requirement of a specific number of davits and 
me re<iuirement of a definite time limit for lowering the boats were both means of 
ftttaming the same object, viz, the speedy launching of boats; and that it might be 
possible to combine both ideas in a common formula. This has been done in the 
rales given below. 

Lighting. — It was agreed in principle that it should be laid down in the case of all 
new foreign-going passenger steamers of large size that there should be an independent 
aoiirce of lighting placed in the upper part of the ship. 

Means ofembarting passengers into the boats. — The draft French rules require that 
a minimum number of ladders of different kinds must be provided for the purpose of 
embarking passengers into the boats. The British delegates agreed that the present 
m^ns of embarkmg passengers into the boats can not be regarded as complete or 
satisfactory, but that they were unable to recommend that the pioNisvon o\ ^eeoavTcift- 



24 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

dation ladders should be made compulsory. It was agreed that the subject was one 
that required further study and that further proposals should be put forward with 
regard to it. Nevertheless, it is agreed that the captain is the sole judge whether 
circumstances permit embarkation into the boats afloat. Hence, suitable means ol _ 
embarking, such as ladders of all kinds, "shoots," etc., ropes of all kinds, or other 
equivalent appliances ought to be provided for the voyage of the ship. 

(6) Th4 points in which the hoard of trade had promised to modify the tiritish rules. 
These moaifications were carefully studied and alterations were made in them 
meet the views expressed by the French delegation. The following is a text of 
rules as agreed upon: 

The following draft rules, showing the vahie to be assigned to different types 
boats and the space to be provided for each person are proposed as a basis for 
cussion at the international conference. But it is understood that the full req 
ments can not be put into operation at once on all existing ships, and that a caref 
worded exemption clause will be required. It will also be necessary to provi(_ 
for the acceptance of equivalent forms of apparatus which may be invented in th< 
future: 

I. — TYPES OF BOATS TO BE ACCEPTED UNDER THE RULES. 

For the purposes of these niles boats shall be classified as follows: 

Class I. — Open lifeboats with internal buoyancy only. 

Open lifeboats with internal and external buoyancy. 

Decked lifeboats having permanent water-tight bulwarks, buoyancy in the wings, 
and efficient arrangements for freeing the deck of water. 

Class II. — Decked lifeboats with collapsible bulwarks, provided with efficient 
arrangements for freeing the deck of water. } 

Open lifeboats with collapsible bulwarks having about inches freeboard and copper t 
buoyancy tanks. I 

Class ///.♦— Ordinary open boat*' without buoyancy. | 

I 

n. FORM, CAPACITY, AND NUMBER OF PERSONS. 

(a) Open lifeboats. — The capacity shall be determined by exact measurement. ^ 

Number of persons = capacity in cubic feet divided by 10 or 9, according to cir- "^ 
cumstances. 

In boats with very fine ends the number of persons will be limited by an appro- 
priate formula. 

Another formula will be used for the purpose of preventing boats being made too 
full in form. 

(6) Decked boats with collapsible bulwarks. — If the freeboard, stability, and effective 
depth of the boat are sufficient, the area of the deck in square feet divided by 4 gives 
the number of persons to be allowed. Special rules will be necessary to provide for 
cases in which the freeboard, stability, or effective depth would not be such os to 
admit of this number of persons being carried with safety. 

(c) Open lifeboats having collapsible .bulwarks. — The number of persons should not 
depend on the depth measured to the top of the canvas, but on the depth to the top 
of the solid hull, and should be such as to give at least 9 inches freeboard in a 28-foot 
boat. The number of cubic feet per person will be settled by trial. 

(d) Children. — Two children under 12 shall be counted as one adult. 

ni. BOATS TO BE PROVIDED. 

• 

(1) Davits must be provided in accordance with the following table: 
Each set of davits having a lifeboat of Class I attached: Provided, however, That no 
ship shall be required to have a larger number of sets of davits than the number of 
boats required for the accommodation of all persons. Any appliance or appliances 
at least as effective under all conditions as davits for placing the lifeboats in the 
water may be accepted in lieu of davits. The cargo derricks of the ship are not 
regarded as equivalent to davits. 

The davits shall be sufficiently strong to allow of the boats being lowered with their 
full complement of persons if necessary. 



6AFETT OF UFE AT SEA. 



25 



Registered length of vessel in feet. 



Minimum 
number of 
sets of day its. 



I 



Minimum 
number of 
open boats. 



Srnder 160 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

20 

22 

24 

26 

28 

30 


2 


MO and under 190 


3 


bo and under 220 


4 


BO and under 245 


4 


Mb and under 270 


5 


■ro and under 300 


5 


MO and under 330 ... 


6 


■K) and under 370 , 


7 


jfen and under 410. , 


7 


Iff and uT^der 4fio , , . 


9 


liflo and u"der rto _ . 


10 


■W* and under ftSO 


12 


BiHl apd under MO . . 


13 


Bid and under too .... _ . 


14 


BOO and under 760 


15 


?W0 and under 820 


17 


B20 and under 890 


18 


IKO and under 960 


19 




20 







(The figures in this table are provisional, and arc intended to sarve as a basis for 
Idisciission.) 

; The number of open lifeboats attached to the davits must not be less than that given 
rin the third column of the above tabie. 

If it is not practicable to place in any ship the number of sets of davits required by 

:the second column of the above table', each signatory State may sanction a smaller 

number of sets of davits in that ship: Provided, however. That the number of sets of 

daAdts or other appliances of equal efficiency shall not be less than that given in the 

third column of the table. 

\Mien the number of sets of davits or of other equally effective appliances is less 
' than required by the second column of the table, the owner of the ship shall be required 
to demonstrate by an actual test made in the presence of a surveyor that the arrange- 
ments are such that all the boats can be placed in the water, uncfer the standard con- 
ditions set forth below, in a time to be determined in accordance with an appropriate 
formula . 
The conditions of the test shall be as follows: 
(a) The ship is to be in smooth water and upright. 

(6) The time shall be measiured from the removal of the boat covers, or such other 
operation as may be necessary to prepare the boats for lowering, until the last boat or 
life raft is afloat. 

(c) The number of persons employed in the whole operation must not exceed the 
total number of boat hands that will, under normal circumstances, be carried in the 
vessel when in service. 

(rf) The boats when being lowered must have their full equipment on board and at 
leafjt two men. 

(2) If the lifeboats attached to davits do not provide accommodation for all per- 
sons, additional lifeboats shall be carried of such number and capacitor that the total 
capacity of the lifeboats attached to davits and the additional lifeooats is not less than 
that given in a special table. 

The additional lifeboats may be either Class I or Class II. 

(3) If the before-mentioned lifeboats do not provide accommodation for at least 75 
per cent of the persons, then additional lifeboats of either Class I or Class II shall be 
provided so that there is accommodation for at least 75 per cent of all persons. 

(4) Accommodation shall be provided either in lifeboats of Classes I or II, or by 
nrfts of approved type and construction, for all persons. 

(5) Open lifeboats of the square-sterned type may be admitted under conditions to 
be determined. 

(6) The number and capacity of lifeboats need, in no case, be greater than is suffi- 
cient to accommodate all persons. 

(7) Boats, the body of which requires to be adjusted prior to launching, shall not 
be allowed as part of the life-saving equipment. 

Equipment of boats. — In the case of vessels trading on short frequented routes 
(e. g., the North Atlantic) and fitted with wireless telegraphy, it is not necessary to 
carry the same equipment of masts, sails, and compasses as is required in other long 
sea trades. 



26 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Stowage of boats, — ^All boats which are not attached to davits or other approve 
appliances shall be so stowed that they can be placed in the water in the snoi ' 
possible time, and it is desirable to encourage shipowners and builders to 
that, under the most unfavorable conditions of list and trim, as large a number 
persons as possible can be put into the boats. 

The da\4ts, or appliances for lowering boats, shall be fitted on one or more of 
decks in such positions that the boats can be eflSciently lowered from them. Davit 
shall not be fitted in the bows of a ship, but they may be fitted in any other position! 
in the ship, provided that the boats are not brougnt into dangerous proximity to 
propeller on being lowered into the water. 

Where boats are stowed on more than one deck, the arrangements for lowering th( 
shall be such as to prevent the boats from a lower deck being fouled by those from 
deck above. 

Buoyant apparatus, life buoys and life jackets. — The delegates of the two counti 
are of opinion that the first four rules of Section VI of the French memorandum 
reply to the British draft program can quite easily be accepted, as they are in genei 
accord with the existing regulations in the two countries. 

The British delegates, however, can not agree to the provisions of the fifth rul 
They recognize its advantages, but they forsee difficulties in making it obligatory. 

Life jackets for children. — A sufficient proportion of the life jackets carried shall be 
a size suitable to children. 

Construction and inspection of ocean-going passenger and emigrant ships. 

(a) Hull. — As the British committee which is studying the question of bulkhea( 
and subdivision of ships has not yet finished its dehberations, it is not possible toj 
arrive at any conclusions at present on this subject. 

(6) Equipment. — /. Lighting and flashing signals. — (i) It was agreed in princij 
that electric light should be obligatory on all new passenger and emigrant ships of lai 
size. 

(u) It is desirable' that passenger and emigrant ships should be provided with 
Morse signal lamp. The British delegates were, however, unable to agree that 
should be made obligatory in all cases. 

(iii) It was agreed that the use of searchlights for na\'igation purposes should 
stricty limited. 

II. Transmitting orders and sound signals. — (i) It was a^eed in principle that th< 
should be adecjuate means of transmitting orders and signals between the different 
parts of the ship. 

(ii) It was a^eed in principle that vessels carrying large numbers of passengers 
should be provided with two sets of apparatus for making sound signals, and that thi^ 
apparatus should be of a definite power. ■ 

III . Boats and life-saving appliances. — (This is dealt with under a separate heading.V 

IV. Miscellaneous equipment. — It was agreed that the provision of mechanicah 
sounding apparatus, of material for stopping a leak, and of apparatus for communicate 
ing; with another ship or with the shore, were questions which require special considef- 
ation on the part of all the administrations concerned, but it was decided that thefl9 
were all matters which might be left to be determined by those administrations. 

(c) Machinery. — (1) It was agreed in principle that in tiie case of new foreign-gom^ 
passenger steamers, the machinery should, so far as is reasonable and practicable, baf" 
duplicated, either in whole or in part, to the satisfaction of the competent authorities 
in eaxjh country. 

(2) Each apparatus or group of apparatus concerned with the propulsion of the shi^ 
shall be at least in duplicate and capable of working independently. 

The following are considered as being concerned with the propulsion of the ship: 
ii) The bunkers and tanks for fuel and feed water. 
\ii) The boilers and their feed pumps. 

{iii) In certain cases to be determined by the administration of each country th^" 
propelling machinery proper and their accessories. 

(3) It was agreed in principle that the steering apparatus should de duplicated. 

(4) It was agreed in principle that new foreign-going passenger steamers carryisgp 
large numbers of passengers should be provided with an emergency circuit for lightiniT 
certain important parts of the ship in case of emergency (e. g., certain stairways, alley- 
ways, decks, and the sides of the ship). 

While it was recognized that the precise limit must be further considered at the 
conference, it was agreed provisionally that the limit of 200 passengers would ioim 
a suitable basis for discussion. 



-enfl 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 27 

iEarhor and tide signals. — The dele^tes of the two countries recognize that it is de- 
Me that there should be international uniformity in regard to harbor and tide sig- 
. and that for day signals signals which float in the wind should be replaced by 
L signals. 

"Since, however, further information would be necessary for dealing with this ques- 
i, the delegates of the two countries agreie that it would be preferable to reserve it 
consideration at a later date. 

[Confidential.] 

[ORANDUM CONCERNING THE POSITIONS OP THE GERMAN IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT 
ON THE QUESTION OP THE SAPETY OP THE OCEAN PASSENGER TRADE. 

The program proposed by the British Government as a basis for the negotiationff 
the Intemational Conference for the Safety of the Passenger Trade at Sea contains 
le following points: 

1. Intemational uniformity. 

2. Safety of ship construction. 

3. Life-saving appliances. 

4. Safety of navigation. 

In reference to this program the Imperial German Government proposes to bring 
)ut at the intemational conference an agreement concerning the requirements to 
made to secure the safety of navigation of passenger ships and likewise concerning 

le safety of the passenger trade on the basis of the following: 

INTERNATIONAL UNIPORMITY. 

The States taking part in the conference will have to examine all the questions 
«ted under numbers 2, 3, and 4 of the program concerning the safety of the 
nger trade at sea. They will have to establish such requirements as must be 
e according to the present status of technical science as reasonable demands to 
e the safety of a passenger ship. Furthermore they will have to take such meas- 
as can otherwise serve the purpose of securing the safety of the passenger trade 
sea. When the States shall nave agreed upon these requirements and measures 
safety each contracting State must bind itself to carry out these measures as against 
of its own flag, and take care that each passenger ship carrying its flag shall 
) sailing be subject to the necessary inspections and receive a proper certificate 
a proof that it has complied with these conditions. 

Each State will have to be responsible that the ships of its flags which possess such 
rtificates actually have comphed with the requirements of the intemational agree- 
lent concerning their safety. 

Ships possessing such a certificate still in force will not have to be inspected in any 

of the other conference States. Moreover the control of these ships through the 

re of another conference State shall hereafter be limited to ascertaining that a 

id certificate is on board — excepting of course cases of visible unseaworthiness or 

ble and serious defects. 

An agreement must be reached concerning the contents and the form of the certifi- 
B in the most essential points. The conference States will likewise be obliged to 
icate the forms of their certificates to each other. 

The intemational agreement will have to cover all passenger ships plying between 
e ports of the conference States. The several States shall be at hberty to adopt 
Bieasures concerning the safety of passenger ships plying between the ports — 

1. Of their own country, or 

2. Of one or more States not taking part in the conference. 

The States not now taking part in the conference may join others in the interna- 
tional agreement. 

Temporary regulations will be necessary in order to carry out the several safety 
i&easures mentioned under Nos. 2 to 4 below. It might be recommended that the basic 
pnnciplee designed to secure safety through the buoyancv of ships should be applied 
•Uy to those passenger ships that will have been launched after tne ratification of the 
international agreement. 

Concemine me equipment of ships with wireless telegraphy a temporary regulation 
till have to be provided within one year after ratification for reconstmction or altera- 
tion in the case of all old steamers. And finally temporary provisions will be needed 
likewise concerning the equipment of old ships with lifeboats and safety appliances. 

Jnaemuch as the program prepared for the conference is verv extensive, it will be 
rat of the question that the present conference should likewise consider the safety 



28 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

of freight ships, notwithstanding the numerous siiggestions which have been receii 
from interested parties. Just the same a wish wm have to be expressed that a ' 
conference to be called for this purpose may likewise regulate this matter, and 
ticularly the question of deck loads. This regulation may properly be undei 
on the occasion of the international freeboard conference intended to be held ni 
year. 

SAFETY OP SHIP CONSTRUCTION. 

It is not recommended to prepare an international declaration of more del 
rules, because they would not be enforceable, nor would they be required in 
interest of navigation. Only a declaration of the essential principles may be 
fiidered. 

Among these — disregarding for the present the questions of equipment of ships ' 
safety appliances and with wireless telegraphy, which are to be considered lat 
must be mentioned the principles concerning the assurance of buoyancy of pi 
steamers: 

(a) Constructing water-tight bulkheads. 

(6) A double bottom and inner skin. 

The Imperial Government suggests that regulations concerning these subjects 
worked out by the international conference according to the sketch contained 
Exhibit No. 1. 

LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES. 

The opinion of the Imperial Government as to the manner in which the rules 
cerning the equipment oi passenger ships with boats and life-saving apparatus she 
hereafter be shaped has been expressed in Exhibit No. 2 and its supplements to a, 
c, and d. 

The following remarks are to be added : 

Paragraph 1. — The length of the ship is decisive in the question of equipping 
ships with boats, inasmuch as the minimum number of dfavits is to be prescri 
according to this length. 

In the place of davits other appliances may be used as far as they offer the 
safety and speed in launching the boats when fully equipped and manned- Tb 
must be pro\a8ion to take all the persons on board into the boats or, as the case mi^ 
be, into (jther apparatus, such as life rafts, etc. ^^ 

Paragraphs 3 to 8. — On the part of Germany great value is placed upon preference 
being given to lifeboats which must carry a part of their buoyancy apparatus on tb| 
outside in tlie form of cork fenders. Otherwise it is considered highly desirablp 
that the international agreement should enable each country to develop its owO 
types (>i boats or to retain those that have proven their usefulness. 

The protocols under Exhibits 2, a, b, c, and d justify the reliance placed upon 
the boats used in Germany. From them it will be seen that the allowance of 0.25|l 
cubic meters (equal to 9 cubic feet) of room for each person is sufficient and, lik^ 
wise, that the requirement mentioned in paragraph 6 of section 3 of Exhibit 2 10 
enforceable which demands that the boats, davits, tackle, etc., must be so stronfi 
that the boats mav be launched when fully loaded. 

Paragraph 9. — On the highly frequented routes of the north Atlantic Ocean the 
boats will not have to make long trips, but will do well to keep near the place o*^ 
«?cident as reported by wireless telegraphy. 

SAFETY OF NAVIGATION. 

a. Regulations concerning the equipment of ships with unreless telegraphy. — ^The Impe- 
rial Government is of the opinion that it would be desirable to adopt the following 
ragreements on this subject: 

1. All ships having on board 50 or more persons, including the crew, must be 
equipped with wireless apparatus operators, at least ICK) nautical miles, day and night- 

These regulations shall not apply to the following ships: 

a. Those which make trips not more than 200 nautical miles from the coast. 

h. Those where the number of persons on board has increased to more than 50 by 
reason of an accident, as, for example, when some members of the crew fall sick anP 
substitutes must be hired. 

c. Those which regularly carry no more than 5Q persons on board, but for a part (4 
iheir trip take on board colored stevedores and thus exceed the number of 50. 
. 2. In regard to the apparatus and emergency apparatus and number of operators^ 
their qualifications, the requisite certificates, the duty of intercommunica,tion, thfl 
more detailed regulations concerning distress signals, etc., all these are covered by 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 29 

rules laid down in the International Convention on Wireless Telegraphy of I^n- 

, in 1912, and specified in its regulations. 
3. In Article XI 1 1 of those regulations the following classes of stations aboard 
ipe are provided for: 

a. Those having a permanent service. 
6. Those having a service of limited duration, 
c. Those having no fixed working hours. 
Ship stations of class A should be provided on all passenger steamers which have 

jrage speed of at least 15 knots, and which, besides, carry 200 or more passengers 
board, and which, plying between two successive ports, make a run of at least 500 
utical miles. 

Ship stations of class B should be provided on all other passenger steamers. 
Ship stations of class C should be provided on all freight steamers. 
Number of operators.— ^hip stations of class A should have at least two operators of 
e first class. 

Ship stations of class B should have one operator of the first class and one other 
m able to recognize the international distress call and the call of his own ship 
tion. The decision of the question whether this second man should be specially 
mined concerning his ability should be left to the individual States. 
Ship stations of class C shall have at least one operator of the second class. 
In the sense of this regulation all steamers employed chiefly in the carrying of at 
at 25 passengers are to oe considered as passenger steamers. 

b. The creation of an international service for the purpose of reporting ice^ etc. — It 
ems worthy of recommendation that official reports concerning the actual ice con- 

itions in the neighborhood of the Banks of Newfoundland should be furnished to the 
teamship companies to aid their voluntary agreements on navigation routes, and, 
'kewise that snips during their voyage should be warned against the dangers of ice 

d derelicts. 

All ships provided with wireless telegraphy which ply between Europe and North 

merica — including exploration and scout ships- should therefore be obliged imme- 
iately to report any ice or other obstruction of navigation observed to all ships within 

eir reach and to the nearest land station. 

If the first reporting ship can not reach a land station it should make an attempt to 
leliver its report with the aid of other ships. These shall be bound to forward such 

ports. 

All reports of ice shall immediately be forwarded by the wireless coast stations to 

e central station of the United States. 

It would be gratifying if this American central station on the American side of the 
Atlantic Ocean would regularly notify the steamship companies as well as the ships 
afloat of these reports of ice, and further would enable the European central stations, 
' it their request and cost, either through the original ice reports or edited summaries, 
to furnish like notices on the European side. A common code, which would have to 
[be as simple as possible, seems desirable for these reports. Through an exchange of 
opinions between the German, English, and American officials a telegraphic code, 
proposed by the Germans, has been approved, which miglit likewise serve as the basis 
for an international code. 

c. Destruction of derelicts and other obstructions to navigation. 

The Imperial Government considers the removal of derelicts and other obstructions 
in the interest of the safety of navigation to be desirable, but is of the opinion that the 
present negotiations should not be burdened with this question, as it holds that there 

15 no urgent necessity therefor and that it would occasion considerable costs 'which 

would be altogether out of proportion to the benefits that might be expected therefrom. 

In given cases the Imperial Government would be ready to contribute to such expenses. 

' d. Regulations in the scope of navigation proper. (Change in the rules of the road.) 

.1. As to the question whether a change of speed should be prescribed in cases of 

reported danger from ice (article 16 of the international niles of the road) the Imperial 
Government takes the following view: 

A limitation of speed in case of ice danger, by an article, regulation, or treaty does 
not seem desirable. In case of fog a moderation of speed is already demanded by article 

16 of the rules of the road. Moreover article 29 of those rules prescribes a sufficient 
guaranty that each captain according to the special circumstances of the case must 
take such proper measures as the conditions or the practice of seamen demand. 
According to the German conceptions the navigation of a ship in the proximity of ice 

'. should be governed by the same principles as navigation in the proximity of coasts 
and shoals. 

2. In regard to article 31 of the rules of the road the Imperial Government favors 
an amendment so that the international radiotelegraphic distress signal be included. 



30 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

3. The highly desirable prohibition of private signals which mi^ht be 
for distress signals of article 31 of the rules of the road is contained in article 
the German rules of the road which reads as follows: 

'^ Reserving to warships the right to use rockets and shells throwing stars for 
signaling purposes, the distress signals may only be given in case ships are in 
or danger." 

According to the German understanding of article 31 the distress signals incl 
star signals of any kind and likewise the stars sent up by the roman candles wf 
are nowadays in many cases used as private signals. The Imperial Grove: 
favors an amendment of the international rules of the road in the sense of artick 
of the German rules. 

4. The obli^tLon to come to the assistance of persons in peril on the ocean 
already been imposed upon aXL captains by article 11 of the agreement for the u 
cation of rules concerning assistance and salvage in case of distress at sea conclu 
September 23, 1910. 

5. The Imperial Government is of the opinion that on the question as to whe 
and how far it should be made a legal duty for ships to hasten to the aid of a 
in distress upon a wireless call, it must take the following position: 

It must be recognized as a general principle that every ship that hears a dis 
call through wireless tel^raphy is bound to hasten to the aid of the ship in dist 
and that the captain may refrain from going to aid only in case it seems to him nei 
reasonable nor necessary on account of some peculiar conditions; in that case 
grounds which induced him to refrain must be entered in the ship*s log. It m 
Ukewise be provided that the omission to render aid to the ship does not give 
owner of the wrecked ship any le^l claim for damages. 

6. And, finally J as far as the equipment of ships wim searchlights and the equipmi 
of the lookouts with field glasses during the night is concerned, the Imperial Govei 
ment is of the opinion that experience thus far does not make their introduc 
appear desirable. 

e. Determination of steamship lanes. 

The shipowners chiefly interested in trans- Atlantic traffic have made private 
ments about the routes to be followed during the various seasons of the year, and 
agreements have only recently been examined. Thus far this has been siLfficient 
the needs of the time. The Germans would therefore not recommend any change 
this connection or any change in these steamer routes which have heretofore 
agreed on privately by an international agreement. On the other hand it has b' 
suggested that the Government may exert pressure upon those shipowners who ha 
not yet acceded to those private agreements. 

Tne Imperial Government believes it should recommend that the intematioj 
conference may take these wishes into account. If there diould be any objec 
that the Government shall exert pressure upon shipowners who are not parties to thoii 
agreements, it might be referred to the shipowners themselves who are parties toti^ 
present agreement. * 

SPECIFICATIONS — WATER-TIGHT BULKHEADS FOR PASSENGER STEAMERS IN TRANfa 

ATLANTIC AND EXTENSIVE COASTWISE TRADE. 

A. Number of water-tight bulkheads, and spacing of same. 

The following are considered high-speed passenger steamers: Steamers with exceed? 
ingly fine lines and great speed for the transfer of passengers, and with small caig^ 
space in proportion to their size. 

Combination freight and passenger steamers: Moderately fine or full line witib 
moderate speed, of great cargo capacity, and capable of accommodating at least 5C 
passengers. 

The distance between water-tight bulkheads is to be such that the ship will floai 
with the following compartments flooded: 

1. Fast passenger steamers — 

(a) Two hundred and sixty meters and above, the four forward compartments,* oJ 
any two adjacent, with 5 per cent reduction for all compartments below water-ti^^ 
deck. 

(6) Two hundred and twenty meters and under 260 meters, the three forward oi 
any two adjacent compartments, ^ with a reduction of 5 per cent for all compartmente 
under the water-tight deck. 

— ■■■ ~ " ■■. ■ ■■ 11 I ^^■^^^^^■^^ II ■■»■»■■■.■■■■»■■■■ ■ .^ _ ,,^ 

1 The total length of the four forward compartments should not be less than 25 per cent of the ship's 
length. 

« The total length of the three forward compartments shall not be smaller than 18 per cent of the length ol 
,ihe ship. 



SAFETY OF LIFK AT SEA. 



31 



r(c) 180 meters and under 220 meters, any two adjacent compartments with 5 per 
mt reduction for all compartments under the water-tight deck. 

(d) 150 meters and under 180 meters, any two adjacent compartments with 16f per 
at reduction for all compartments under the water-tight deck. 

(e) 12K) meters and under 150 meters, any two adjacent compartments with 33} per 
it reduction for all compartments under the water-tight deck. 
) 100 meters and under 120 meters, the two forward compartments or any other 
compartment, in both cases 5 per cent reduction for all compartments under the 
er-ti^t deck. 

g) Under 100 meters in length, any one compartment with a 5 per cent reduction 
all compartments under the water-tight deck. 

2. Combination freight and passenger steamers. 



I) Over 180 meters, any two adjacent compartments 

)) 150 meters to 180 meters, any two adjacent compartments 

(e) 120 meters to 150 meters, the two forward compartments, or any other one com 

L partment 

Id) 100 meters to 120 meters, any one compartment 

!•) 90 meters to 100 meters, any one compartment 



WitiLar«daetioii 

of— 



Machin- 

boile'r, 
and end 
compart- 
ments. 



Per cent. 
5 
5 

5 
5 
5 



The re- 
maining 
compart- 
ments 
under- 
neath the 
water- 
tight 
deck. 



Per cent. 
161 
33i 



10 
20 
30 



BuWiead curves. — ^Bulkhead curves shown on the following 10 plates have been 

ked out in accordance with the above, and from typical ships forms. "H" rep- 

ints the height from the upper side of keel to underside of deck plating to which 

ulkhead extends. The length of the ship is measured from the forward side of the 

9IQ to afterside of stempost on the water line. 

On Plate I are shown the compartments that may be filled without sinking the 
below the water-tight deck. If we erect ordinates through their middle points 
lay off the lengths of the compartments up from the base line we will obtain the 
bulkhead curve as shown. To use these curves the length of the ship is divided into 
100 equal parts. Thus the ordinates drawn through the middle points of the com- 
partments represent the water-tight bulkheads required, thus giving us the mini- 
mum spacing, for any assumed draft. To develop bulkhead curves for different 

dnfts the ordinates for the curves shown on Plates II to X are represented in ^r^' 

These curves then each represent one of the 100 divisions or length of ship, as its num- 
ber signified. Odd ordinates have dotted lines, even ordinates have full lines. The 
cunres marked **0" to "100" represent the distance of the ends of the bulkhead 
corves from the intersection of the "0 " and **100 " ordinates of the coordinate system. 
If we lay off the length of ship on ordinate No. 50, and connect this point with the 
intersection of the axes of the coordinate system, this line will be the locus of the ends 
of all the bulkhead curves. Thus we can lay off the bulkhead curve ordinates for 
any draft, and so arrive at the bulkhead spacing. 

Steamers in which different deductions are made for the machinery spaces and 
cargo spaces have two sets of curves, as on Plates II and VII . Wherever the ordinates 
represent the length of two or more compartments combined, special note thereof 
18 made on the plate, as on No VII. In ships having double bottoms the water is 
OQQsidered out to the shell. It is to be understood that for these curves the water- 
tight deck is continuous from stem to stem and that the sheer is the same as given in 
table on page 12. Sheer is measured from water line to underside of deck. The 
curves have been so computed that the flooding of the compartments, as shown, will 



32 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

bring the water line tangent to the underside of the deck. If the vessel has a rai 
quarter-deck, or if other water-tight erections occur on this deck, the water line mai 
be tangent to the underside of the raised portion, provided the water-tight deck 
have no part of it submerged. In the ships in which the ordinates of the curves 
resent two adjacent compartments (see PL VII), these compartments should 
possible be made the same size. If this is not practicable, the smaller compartmei 
should have at least one-quarter the length of the total compartment for ships IJ 
meters long, or at least 3 meters for smaller ships. If boilers are grouped longitudi 
nally in the ship it is highly advisable to provide a water-tight bulknead betwe 
each group. In no case should the length of the boiler room exceed 28 meters. T 
draft found to correspond to the bulkhead spacing must not be exceeded amidshi 

When passengers are carried in cargo passenger steamers, between the water-tig. 
deck and the next deck below, and in only one compartment, and when all othi 
compartments contain cargo, the ship may be loaded to the freeboard mark. But in 
case must the extra submersion be greater than 10 per cent of the submerged bulkhead, 

For compartments having built-in obstructions the corresponding reduction 
volume is made. Offset bulkheads and all recesses are to be taken into accouni 
this is done by resolving the different recesses into one mean vertical bulkhead. F 
compartments having a water-tight tunnel running through them, a correspon 
reduction is to be made. 

If the compartment aft of the sternpost gland is considered flooded the shaft alle| 
should also be added. In twin-screw vessels, having a longitudinal water-tight 
bulkhead between tunnels, only one tunnel is added. 

If the engine room is considered flooded, the shaft alley should be added, unlea 
separated by a water-tight door. If the sheer of the vessel does not correspond to that 
given in the table on page 12, the curves are modified as follows: If the sheer is smaller, 
one-half the difference between its "H" and the normal ''H" is subtracted, and vice 
versa. This must be done separately for the forward and after end of the ship, each 
then having its own curve. ^ 

B. Construction of the water-tight transverse bulkheads. — Bulkheads should never be: 
offset at the different decks if this can be avoided. Where this is necessary, thuj 
maximum total offset for all decks must not exceed 5 meters. 

All openings in transverse bulkheads are to be avoided and only made where abfl 
solutely necessary. ^ 

No openings are allowed below the water-tight deck in the collision bulkhead, 
neither are they allowed below the load water line in a transverse bulkhead, separatii)^ 
two cargo compartments. In all other bulkheads, openings below the load water ]xn» 
must be provided with vertical sliding or other similar approved doors. Swingi 
doors for passing and handling cargo are allowed below the load water line, provid 
they be closed and securely fastened while the ship is under way. When this is dom 
the fact should be noted in the ship's log. 

When there is a water-tight door between engine and boiler room, this door is to 
kept closed in foggy weather. 

In general, transverse bulkheads are not to be provided with openings for the dis- 
charge of bilge water. This is only permissible in bulkheads between engine and 
boiler rooms in ships without double bottoms, but longitudinal bulkheads for sub- 
dividing engine, boiler, and other compartments, should invariably be provided witb. 
openings for the free passage of bilge water. The covers for all these openings musfc 
have overhead operating gear, and a signal system must be provided to announce th© 
closing of these bulkhead doors. 



I 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 



88 



0. Table of sheern. 







Deck sheer at side. 




Length 
of water 
line be- 
tween 












At a 


Amid- 
ships and 




outer 

edge of 

stem and 


At stem. 


quarter 
length 
aft of 


a quarter 
length 
forward 
firom 
stern- 
post. 


At stem- 
post. 


stem- 
post. 




stem. 




Meters. 


Meters. 


Meters. 


Meters. 


Meters. 


90 


2.02 


0.581 





0.689 


100 


2.13 


0.594 





0.743 


110 


2.24 


0.608 





0.798 


120 


2.35 


0.621 





0.853 


130 


2.47 


0.635 





0.907 


140 


2.58 


0.648 





0.962 


150 


2.69 


0.662 





1.017 


160 


2.80 


0.675 





1.071 


170 


2.91 


0.689 





1.126 


180 


3.03 


0. 702 





1.181 


190 


3.14 


0.716 





1.235 


200 


3.25 


0.729 





1.290 


210 


3.36 


0.743 





1.344 


220 


3.47 


0.756 





1. WTif 


230 


3.59 


0.770 





1.454 


240 


3.70 


0.783 





1.508 


250 


3.81 


0.797 





1.663 


260 


3.92 


0.811 





1.617 


270 


4.03 


0.824 





1.672 


280 


4.15 


0.837 





1.726 


290 


4.26 


0.851 





1.780 


300 


4.37 


0.864 





1.834 



Lights. — Side lights located near the water line are to be kept closed while 
way. 

Dovhle and inner bottom. — It is recommended that in ships over 220 meters 
gth the double bottom be extended forward of amidships, by means of an inner 
or by making the lowest deck water-tight. 
>arture8 from the above rule must in every case be approved by the commission. 

REGULATIONS. 

ulatums concerning the equipment of passenger steamers ivith boats and safety 
nces. — 1. Steamers which carry passengers across the Atlantic or on omer 
voyages, or between different seas in the coasting trade, and which go more 
.50 nautical miles from the coast, must be equipped as follows in so far as they 
; carry a sufficient number of lifeboats for all persons on board: 

[Fractions may be expressed in whole meters.] 



Length of ship (meters). 



18.80 ..- 

id under *^*.66. . 
id under 67.10. . 
id under 74.70. . 
id under 82.35. . 
id under 91.50.. 
id under 100.66. 
nd under 112.85 
nd under 125.05 
nd under 140.30 
nd under 158.60 
nd under 176.90 
nd under 195.20 
nd under 213.50 
nd under 231.80 
nd under 250.10 
nd under 271.45, 
nd under 292.80. 
nd under 314.15. 





Mini- 




mum 


Mini- 


number 


mum 


of fixed 


number 


open life- 


of pairs 
of davits. 


boats 


(class la 




and b; see 




par. 3). 


2 


2 


3 


3 


4 


4 


5 


4 


6 


5 


7 


5 


8 


6 


9 


7 


10 


7 


12 


9 


14 


10 


16 


12 


18 


13 


20 


14 


22 


16 


24 


17 


26 


18 


38 


19 


30 


20 



38444—14 3 



34 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

If it should be impracticable to construct the number of pairs of davits shown 
the second column of the table, the proper officials may allow a smaller number 
davits. The number of pairs of davits or equivalent appliances, however, must 
in any case be smaller than the minimum number of the fixed open lifeboats stan 
under the davits, as given in column 3 of the table. 

When the boats connected with the davits are not sufficient to carry all persons 
board, then additional lifeboats must be provided in such numbers and of su< 
capacity that the total space of the boats connected with the da\4t8 and additio: 
lifeboats shall not be less than shc^vn by the annexed table. ^ 

The additional lifeboats may be boats of classes 1 and 2. (Compare par, 3.) 
these lifeboats be not sufficient tor at least 75 per cent of the persons that are to 
carried, then a dditionaL lifeboats of classes 1 and 2 must be provided in order 
there may be sufficient boat capacity for at least 75 per cent of all persons on boa 
Other recognized safety appliances (common open boats, rafts, etc.) may be allow 
for the remaining 25 per cent. Howcv^er, there must be enough boat space for a 
persons actually on board. 

All of the fixed lifeboats required by the regulations must be under the davits 
under other appliances considered as equivalent thereto by the proper officials, 
means of which the boats may be speedily launched . 

All boats that are not connected as prescribed with the davits or equivale: 
appliances must be stowed in such a way that they may without difficulty be 
nee ted with the davits or other apparatus. At the bow and at places where the boa 
upon launching, might come into contact with the ship's screws no davits may 
put up. 

2. As far as jjossible ail boats are to be carried on the highest deck. The placing 
boats on various decks may be allowed on condition that the places under the boai 
of an upper deck do not afford sufficient space. 

All boats are to be placed in such a way that their crews may easily approach theii 
for the purpose of swinging them out. 

3. The following types of boats may be employed: 
Class 1, open fixed lifeboats. — (a) Boats built sharp at both ends of wood or me 

provided inside with a firm and solid air tank, or other equivalent means of buoyanc; 
and besides this outward with a cork fender of appropriate size. The total contei 
of liiese means of buoyancy must, in wooden boats, amount to at least 10 per cent 
the volume of the boat, 1 cubic meter of the cork fender being reckoned as eq 
to eight-tenths of a cubic meter of the capacity of the air chamber. In metal boate 
this sort the cubic contents of the buoyant appliance is to be increased correspondi 
to their smaller buoyancy due to their structural material. When at least 4 life- 
boats are required, 1 on either side of the ship may have a square stem; if at leaflrt 
10 boats are required, 2 of them may be square stem, (b) Boats, as those abovag 
without outer buoyancy equipment. 

Class 2y semicollapsible boats. — (a) Decked semicoUapsible boats, built accorA 
ing to the best designs to be specified, (b) Open semicollapsible boats, built accord- 
ingto the best designs to be specified. 

When fully loaded semicollapsible boats, as above, should have a freeboard of wH 
least 200 milfimeters if of a length of 7.90 meters, a freeboard of at least 225 millimeten 
when of a length of 8.50 meters, and a freeboard of at least 250 millimeters when dt 
a length of 9.15 meters. 

In semicollapsible boats the cubic contents of the air tank shall amount to 0.03^ 
cubic meters for each person to be carried. (These figures may be rounded to fufl 
numbers.) 

Class 3 J common open boats. — ^All boats when fully loaded must still have a sufficieoj 
freeboard which in the case of semicollapsible boats is to be measured from the uppel 
edge of the rigid part. On each side of the boat there must be fastened a safety lin^ 
running fore and aft. Boats wholly collapsible (Berthon boats, etc.) — ^that is, suet 
boats whose whole body is prepared for service only before launching — ^will not b^ 
admitted as regular life-saving apparatus. 

Sec. 4. The cubical contents of a fixed open boat expressed in cubic meters shaW 
mean the product of its length, its outer width, and inner depth, expressed in metet* 
and multiplied by 0.6. 

The length is to be measured between the outside of the planking at the stem to th< 
outside of the planking at the stern post or up to the farther surface of the stemframBi 
the width between the outside of the planking, the depth in the middle of the lengdi 



1 This table will have to be made up upon the basis that each open boat of class 1 and a semicoUapsflall 
boat of class 2 must stand linder so many pairs of davits as are required by the third column of the abo^ 
table. Three semicollapsible boats of class 2 may stand under the additional davits required by coliuia 
. 2 of the table. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 36 

reen the upper ed^e of the gunwale, and the inner surface of the garboard ^ground) 
ce by the keel, or if the boat has a waterboard with openings for the oars rrom the 
n edge of these openings to the inner surface of the garboard (ground) strake by 
keel. 
fAt the request of the shipowner, or when the inspector considers it necessary, the 
its are to be measured according to Stirling's rule (Simpson's rule). 
Each boat must be provided with a brass plate, showing in figures the cubical con- 
bts of the boat, under these rules, and the number of persons which it may carry. 
Inting over such shields is prohibited. 

Jec. 5. In boats of class 1 (a) 0.255 cubic meter of space is to be reckoned for 
r. adult; in boats of class 1 (b) 0.285 cubic meter. 

len the cubical contents are reckoned by Stirling's rule, the number of persons 
be carried is not to exceed the following figures: 
jln boats of class 1 (a) — 

Length X, breadth X, depth XK 

0.255 

id in boats of class 1 (b) — 

Length X, breadth X, depth XK 

0.285 

The value of the coefficient K is to be found by experiment. 

The number of persons allowed in open semicollapsible boats shall be found through 
riment, the smallest freeboard specified for them being reserved, 
cases of covered semicollapsible boats the number of persons allowed shall like- 
be found through experiment, provided the boat shows sufficient stability and 
hoard (more de&iite provisions concerning the height of the freeboard and the 
light of the deck above water are reserved for further consideration). 
A motor boat is to be considered as a lifeboat if it answers the requirements pre- 
ibed for the lifeboats of the first class, though in calculating the number of persons 
owed to be carried the cubical contents of the engine room must be deducted from 
total contents of the boat. In calculating the cubical contents of the buoyant 
tus the weight of the engine is to be taken into consideration. Motor boats 
admissible as hfeboats in limited numbers only. 
Each of the required boats must have cubical contente of at least 3 cubic meters 
cubic feet). 

Not more than 1.22 meters (4 feet) shall be counted for the depth of the boats; boats 
greater depth may be admitted upon test by the inspection bureau. 
Two children under 12 years old snail be reckoned as 1 adult. It must be possible 
accommodate the persons to be taken into the boat in a sitting position, though a 

ial opportunity to sit down ahall not be required. 
Sec 6. Appliances for lowering the boats must be so arranged that the boats 
y be speeaily launched. 

Appliances must be at hand which make possible a safe and speedy detaching of 
e boats from the blocks. No hooks shall be used on the lower blocks of the boat's 
kle. 

The tackle necessary for lowering boats must always be ready for use, hanging in 
le davits or cranes. The tackle-fall must be so long that the boats may be launched 
en when the ship is light. 

The boats, davits, tackle, blocks, hooks, etc., must be so strong that the boats 
lay be easily let down when fully loaded from the deck to the water. The inspec- 
ion office may be required to approve of the requisite strength by experiments. 
The davits must be provided with man-ropes reaching down to the surface of the 
titer. 
It is forbidden, to stow boats on board one placed in another. 
Sec. 7. Air tanks. — ^Air tanks are to be properly made of copper, yellow metal, 
or some equivalent metal of sufficient strength. 
Tinplate may be used for the air chambers of only those lifeboats which were con- 

cted before January 1, 1910. 
Chambers of zinc are not permitted. 

In the case of copper chambers in metallic boats galvanic activities must be pre- 
vented by proper insulation. 

The foUowing rules shall govern in providing new boats or new air tanks: 

Air tanks of copper or vellow metal shall have walls of a thickness of 0.7 mm. 

The lengthwise seams shall be doubly rabbeted and soldered up; the bottoms are to 

^ rabbeted simply and riveted or soldered up. The length of tne chambers ahall not 

;eed 1.2 meters in any direction. The fore and aft tanks in the boat will best be 

ftade out in two parts. 



36 SAFETY OF UFE AT SEA. 

No part of the air tanks may fonn a part of the side of the boat. 

The tanks are to be set in spaces covered by wood and separated by wooden 
tions, so that Uiey will be protected against dama^ and may easily be taken up. 

Sec. 8. Each boat must have the following equipment: 

At least one oar for every oarwman and two reserved oars besides; one and one 
sets thole pins or rowlocks and two plugs for each water hole. The rowlocks and 
plugs must be attached to the boat. 

(me bailer, one bucket of galvanized iron, one oar with a thole pin or a yoke 
lines, one boat line (painter) of sufficient length, one drag or material for making 
and a boat hook. The oar, bailer, and the bucket must be attached. 

One water tank which can be hermetically sealed and which must be filled \ 
fresh water during the trip and provided witn a drinking cup listened to a line. 

A water-tight bread box, which must always be full of gooa hard biscuit. 

One bottle of rum or brandy. 

One well-fastened line running all around the boat. 

The necessary number of distress signals. 

One lantern that will bum at least eight hours. 

One box of matches in a water-tight box nuide of dieet iron. 

All boats, with the exception of conmion boats, must carry the following additu 
appliances: 

Mast and sail ready for use. 

A hatchet at each end of the boat. 

One boat's compass. 

One tank with 5 kilograms (11 pounds) of vegetable or animal oil to quiet the wsss 
with proper apparatus for the distribution of the oil over the surface of the water. 

Sec. 9. The masts and sails in the boats may be dispensed with on passenger 
ers plying between Europe and North -America and furnished with wireless telegra] 

Sec. 10. Life rafts or equivalent apparatus must have at least 0.085 cubic m< 
(3 cubic feet) of air-tank contents for each adult person, which must be so placed 
they may be launched without help from the oavits or other appliances. Fur' 
more, they must be clearly marked with the number of persons they may carry 
sufficient stability. They must be provided on each side with safety lines as well| 
with a drag, or some proper material for making one, with a line of a length of 
meters and a number of oars corresponding to their length. 

Sec. 11. Ships for which the table prescribes less than six pairs of davits must ha| 
six life buoys on board, while l^er ships must have' the same number of life hue 
as they are required to have davits. 

In tne proxunity of one-half of the life buoys water lights must be kept, with 1m 
necessary appliances for fastening them to the buoys. ^ 

Six life buoys shall be sufficient for passenger steamers employed solely in com 
trade between different seas. • 

The life buoys (ring buoys) must be painted red. 

Newly purchased me buoys must have a carrying capacity of 14 kilograms. M 

The nUmg of the buoys must consist of large pieces of cork or some other mated 
of similar quality and durability; waste cork, cork shavings, etc., are not permissilJl 
neither are such buoys that have to be inflated before using. A safety Ime must M 
fostened to each life duov. ■ 

The life buoys must always be kept on the upper deck in such places that thttS 
shall be ready for immediate use without any delay being caused by their fastenh^ 
One life buoy shall be kept at the stem of the ship or in close proximity. One Im 
buoy on each side of the ship must be provided with a line of a length of 28 meters. • 

Sec. 12. For each person on board a life preserver (swimming vest, cork jacbMl 
must be kept on hand. 

For children a sufficient number of life belts correspondiogly smaller must be kgaJ 

The life belts (swimming vesta, cork jackets) must have a carrying capacity oMI 
least 10 kilograms (22 pounds) and fit the body weU. , 

The life belts must be kept in places near the crew and the passengers and be eoBam 
accessible at any time. i 

Life belts which must be inflated for use are not permitted. j 

Sec 13. The boats, lifeboats, and life belts must be examined at least once a yefl 
as to their serviceability. The results are to be noted in the log of the ship. ^ 

Sec. 14. All the lifeboats on every ship are to be swung out as fast as possible 
at least once in four weeks. At such times it is to be ascertained whether they 
ready for immediate launching. Any defects are to be repaired as soon as possib: 
The result is to be entered in the snip's log. The test may be postponed only 
urgient circumstances prevent the swinging out of the boats in the prescribed " 
In such cases the reason of the postponement is to be noted in the ship's log. 



SAFETT OF LTPE AT SEA. 



37 



JUl the persons of the ship's crew are to be drilled at opportune times in the han- 
^ of the boats and in rowing. 

le number, the manner, and the time of the drills so held are to be noted in the 
)'s log. 

^Ec. 15. There must be at least two persons of the crew expert in the handling of 

boats and in rowing to man each collapsible boat, at least three for each common 

m1 boat, and at least four for each lifeboat of class 1 a and b. 

Sec. 16. Each man of the ediip's crew must be drilled in the handling of the safety 

diances, and likewise be instructed what is his duty to do when certain signals 

given. Each man is to receive a number corresponding to the division of the 

I by which the duties imposed upon him under approach of danger are determined. 

ie entire crew is to be oivided among the boats and collapsible boats according 

I the boat's roll, and the number of the persons assigned to each boat shall be attached 
the boat. Officers are to be distributed equally oetween the boats. 

[Sec. 17. The captain of the vessel is bound when undertaking a voyage or during 
course if there be any changes in the number of persons to provide an appropriate 
iaibution of the passengers between the boats and to provide a proper direction 
the passengers through a sufficient instruction of the crew. 

[Sec. 18. The inspectiou office shall have the right to allow exceptions from these 
* ttions in exceptional cases. 

Senator O'Gobman. Have those conferences, or rather those 

>rts, been made public in any way since you received them ? 
'. FuBUSBTH. No, sir; it is the nrst time I have mentioned them 
anybody. 
^Senator O'Gorman. I do not mean as to whether you had made 
jm public. 

Mr. FuBUSETH. No; they never have been made public to my 
iowledge. 

Mr. Alexander. I think the gentleman should not make that 
itement, because it is not true. Every member of that conference 
" copies of them. 
Senator HrrcHCOOK. They were marked "Confidential." It is 

fectly proper that they should be made pubhc now. 
Mr. Alexander. There is no objection on earth to their being 

le public at this time. 
Senator Williams. He does not mean they had never been printed, 
5cause he read from a printed copy. 
Mr. Alexander. At that time they were confidential, but there is 

reason why they should not be printed now. 
Senator Lodge. He said they had never been made pubhc. 
Senator Shively. They were regarded by the conference as con- 
lential documents at that time ? 
Mr. Alexander. No, sir. 

Senator Sutherland. Why were they marked "Confidentiar^? 
Mr. Alexander. They were so marked at the time they were 
tinted. I will explain why. 
Senator Hitohoook. Do you know why those documents were 

)t secret ? 

'. Furuseth. Because a resolution was adopted at the conference 
It everything done at the conference was to be kept confidential, 

that these documents came to me doubly confidential and, as I 
ly, they have never been made public; and when I say that I mean 
W have never been given to the public. 

^nator Hitchcock. I can see why your conference should be 
•ded as confidential, until concluded, but why were those reports 
earlier conferences between various nations of Europe still kept in 

Idence ? 



38 SAFETY OF UFE AT SEA. 

Mr. FuRUSETH. I do not know. 

Senator Hitchcock. They had been concluded. They might hi 
been published. 

Mr. Fubuseth. I do not know. 

Senator O'Gormax. I may be anticipating what you will say la 
on, but is it not the fact that questions which were to be determii 
at the conference to which you were commissioned had previou 
been considered and determined by other European conferences 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Unquestionably that is what the conferences hi 
been about. 

I shall just call attention to one thing in that; I will quote jus 
few words. The delegates of England and Germany agree, amon 
other things: 

With a view to the establiflhment, in each of the signatory States, a system of cont 
which, as regards the ships of other signatory States, would in all cases, except case 
evident unseaworthiness or of evident and serious defects be limited to verifying 
presence on board of valid certificates of survey. 

That was agreed to between them. But they further agreed t 
they should not put it that way in the invitations, so they put it t 
way in the invitation : 

The conference would further deal with the conditions under which certific 
so issued should be accepted as valid by the other signatory States. 

Senator HncHcooK. Were those agreements between Germj 
and Great Britain and between Germany and France identical ? 

Mr. Fubuseth. Substantially so, sir. 

Senator HrrcHcocK. And they were the same questions that vi 
supposed to be submitted to this international conference to wt 
you went as a delegate ? 

Mr. Fubuseth. They deal with those things. It is a prelimin 
conference upon the question to come before the conference. Ab 
want to say in addition that the instructions to the German d 
gation from the German Government 

Senator Burton. Is that in all three of the statements ? 

Mr. Fubuseth. Yes, sir. 

Senator Burton. The first agreement between 

Mr. Fubuseth. The tentative agreement between Germany i 
England. 

Senator Burton. And the second ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. A tentative agreement between Great Britain i 
France. 

Senator Burton. The first between Germany and Great Brit; 
the second between Great Britain and France, and the third tl: 
instructions by the German Government ? 

Mr. Fubuseth. Yes, sir. 

Senator Williams. Between Germany and France or Gi 
Britain and France ? 

Mr. Fubuseth. Yes, sir. 

Senator Root. I would suggest that if we are going to limit tl 
gentlemen to one-half hour each that we let them go right on i 
coinplete their statements. 

Mr. FuRUSETH. So much for the question of control with refere 
to these documents. But these documents also deal with the qi 
tion of boats, rafts, and men, and they are in substantial agreera 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 



39 



)ti\-een themselves and in substantial agreement with the report 
fhich was drawn up by the committee that was working here, over 
rhich Mr. Chamberlain presided, and which I filed with you and 
rhich is dated September 13. 

Thus, they all provide for rafts and they all provide for '*boat 

ids," a term unknown to seamen until in the very recent past, 

|dben it was invented to meet the protest made by seamen against 

le growing, the constantly increasing, dan^rs of sea travel resulting 

)m a decrease in the number of practical seamen on board oi 

tamers. It has never yet been in use on shipboard. 

About that time we got instructions from tne State Department, 

which it was stated: 

It is alao importajit that the del^ation should bear in mind that, in accepting 

Inciples to govern the reciprocal acceptance of certificates and standards laid down 

otl^r nations relating to safety of life at sea, the power of the Government of the 

ited States to make its inspection through its officers to insure that the require- 

its of such certificates and standards are actually complied with by foreign ships 

ports of the United States must in no manner be impaired. 

I shall deal with that later. Now, then, I have arrived at the 
)nference. 

In the second meeting held by the commission in London, Novem- 
)T 12, 1913, the foUowmg resolutions were adopted: 

Resolved, (1) That we proceed at once to ascertain the sense of the conmiission 

m the sevca^ subjects enumerated in the official program, and that the individual 

lembers of this conmiission, when acting as members of a subcommittee of the con- 

[ierence, shall be bound by tibe decisions of the commission in all such deliberations. 

(2) Upon the first-named del^ate for each subcommittee shall devolve the duty 
amiouncing the determination of this commission on the several questions as they 

(3) That no member of this commission shall a4vocate in subcommittee or in full 
ference any proposition upon which the sense of the commission has not been 
^rtained, nor any propositions not sanctioned by a major it>' vote of the commis- 
i; provided that in emergencies involving the raising of important questions 
Lch have not been considered by the commission and upon which immediate 

[deliberation is desired, the members of the subcommittee must exercise their dis- 
'cretion (the opinion of the majority prevailing), stating specifically that it can not 
take final action until reference is made to the full commission. 

The result of that action, Mr. Chairman, was to make it impossi- 
jble for me to advocate and defend the position taken by the United 
States Senate with reference to safety in the passage of the seaman's 
bill. The standards there set I could not advocate in the committee 
ion which I served, or with members of the conference, except I would 
disobey the vote of the delegation — the American delegation. 

I had prepared a statement dealing with limitation liability as 
■bearing upon safety, that I would have liked to have submitted and 
circulated. This resolution, as thus adopted, closed the door and 
I could not do it. But a little later on I got a still further instruction 
to go into the committee on boats and da^^ts, and there to advocate 
the following: 

Definition : An efficient boat hand shall be a man trained in the launching, lowering. 
detaching, and handling of lifeboats and the use of oars, and shall also have served 
at least one year on vessels navigating the ocean, bays, sounds, or large inland seas or 
lakes. Efficient boat hands shall be able to understand and answer the orders of the 
officers relating to lifeboat service and duties. The efficient boat hand shall have a 
Government certificate as such. Crews shall be drilled with lifeboats, at fire quarters, 
ind in closing bulkhead doors, under regulations prescribed by the administration 
concerned. 



40 SAFETY OF UFB AT filA. 

So that I would have to go into the committee of the confi 
to the committee on life-saving appliances, and advocate the 
opposite of what I imderstood to oe the sense of this Govei 
when I left here; not only had the Senate acted differently fj 
those instructions on the same subject, but the Secretary of ^ 
merce and Labor had joined in a letter in favor of the proposil 
which the Senate had later adopted, and I felt that I ha!d a right 
bring those things to the attention of the conference and to 
committee upon which I served. When this instruction was adopi 
by our commission, it was adopted after a long fight, in which Jui 
Alexander and I took the position that this should not be pi 
The motion to pass it was made, I think, by Capt. Berthoif, 
urged by Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Uhler. 

Senator O'Gorman. That was in substance the adoption of 
unit rule ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. Did the other commission have the sai 
rule? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Yes, I think so; I do not know. 

(Upon motion it was agreed that the "witness might proceed witl 
his statement until 12 o'clock uninterruptedly.) 

Mr. FuRUSETH. On the 22d of September the different commiti 
of the conference had finished their work, and we were called to-:: 
gether by the chairman for the purpose of considering reports froflC 
the different committees. Of course I knew perfectly well whaW 
the report was of the committee on which I served, but I did nob 
know what the reports of the other committees were until they weirt 
examined that day. "' 

One of the reports, the report of he committee on constructioi]^ 
ipipressed me as oeing a good improvement upon existing conditionflu 

The other reports, that dealing with safety in navigation; that 
dealing with the certificate, and that dealing with radiotelegraphy^ 
in my opinion, reduced the existing standards instead of raising them^ 
and so lor that reason I sent my resignation to the President of th^ 
United States in the follo^^ing language: 

London, England, December 22, 1913. 

To the President of the United States, 

Washington^ D. C: 

Commission to-day considered committee reports. They contain provisions reducing 
existing standards of safety. Being true to safety I can not sign convention con^ 
taining them. I tender my resignation to be effective at once. 

Andrew Furusbth. 

1 wanted to resign to the commission, by the way, but they told me 
I could not do that; that I would have to send my resignation to the 
President of the United States. 

I gave a copy of that telegram to Mr. Alexander, chairman of the 
commission. 1 came back to the United States, and on the 10th of 
January I went to the office of the Secretary of Commerce, seeking 
his pleasure as to what time he would see me. He was busy at thaii 
time. 1 left a note with him and asked him to be notified. I went 
back and finished the report and on the 12 th of January I sent tbi^ 
report, of which the following is a copy, to the President, and a copy 



: 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 41 

Secretary Redfield. The letter of transmittal to the President 
as follows: 

Washington, D. C, January Ity 1914- 

. Pbesidbnt: Inclosed please find a report which I feel it my duty to submit to 

partly as an explanation of mv resifi;nation, but more especially in order that 

may be placed in possession of the facts as I saw them, with reference to the 

mational conference on safety of life at sea, which met in London on November 

1913. 

was so strongly imfuressed by a sense of duty that I resigned in order that I might 
these facts l^fore you, if possible before it is too late, 
sre has been and is some effort to use my resimation to the disadvantage of the 
ible consideration of the principles embodiea in the seamen's legislation, and I 
tore req)ectiully ae^ whether there is any objection to giving me public the 
facts. 
With a humble yet earnest prayer that you may find time to examine this report, 
submit it to you, and beg to remain, 
Respectfully and loyally, yours, 

Andrew Furusbth. 
To the President op the UNirED States, 

Washington, D. C. 

In the letter of transmittal to Secretary Redfield I said as follows: 

Washington, D. C, January 12, 1914' 
Hon. William 0. Redfield, 

Secretary of Commerce, Washington , D. C. 

Dear Sir: Inclosed please find copy of report which I this day have forwarded 
|p the President concerning the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, 
Vbich met in London on November 12, 1913. 

When I tendered my resignation to the President there was nothing more that I 
: jQoold do at the conference, and the actions taken by some of the committees were 
if such a nature that it was impossible for me to sign any convention containing them. 
J was, indeed, so strongly impressed with their importance not only to safety, but 
M bearing upon the future sea power of the United States, that my sense of duty drove 
me to return to the United States and make this report in order that the President 
ind you might have the facts, if possible, before it was too late. 

I have the reports from the different committees, the minutes of the committee on 
life-saving appliances, and should be glad to give any such further information as 
you may desire. 

Being ignorant of the proper forms, I have in that, as in my conduct at the confer- 
ence, followed the dictates of my conscience. 

In the earnest hope that you may find time to read this report, I beg to remain. 
Respectfully and loyally, yours, 

Andrew Furuseth. 

[Inclosure.] 

Report to the President op the United States, Submitted by Andrew Furu- 
seth After His Resignation as Commissioner from the United States to 
the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, which Met in 
London, England, on November 12, 1913. 

Mr. President: On December 22 I sent the following cable: 

"TothePresidentof the United States, Washington: Commission to-day considered 
committee reports. They contain provisions reducing existing standards of safety. 
Being true to safety I can not sign any convention containing them. I tender my 
resignation to be effective at once." 

In surrendering back to you the commission and in explanation of my action, I beg 
to submit the following report: 

The conference was divided into five conamittees, as follows: Committee on certi- 
ficates; committee on safetj^ of construction; committee on wireless telegraphy; 
committee on safety of navigation; committee on life-saving appliances, and tJie 
committee on revision, to which latter committee was assigned the duty of preparing 
b the convention in accordance with the report from the other committees. 

The main part of the rules of the conference was one vote for each nation. The rule 
in the conunittee on which I served — the committee on life-saving appliances — had 



42 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

representatives from all the different nations represented. Under its rules of proj 
cednre the chairman stated the proposition in the agenda, and when they received i 
second they were open for discussion. Amendments or substitutes could only be com 
sidered if submitted by one nation and seconded by another. The voting was, ashj 
the general conference, one vote for each nation. The work of the separate commit! 
except the conunittee on revision, to which the other committee reports were submit 
had been finished on the 20th, and the conference had taken a recess until January! 
On the 22d our commission met for a preliminary examination of the reports from 
different committees. 

The report from the committee on life-saving appliances contains several distind 
reductions in the existing l^;al or statutory standards of safety. British law piomoli 
gated January 17, 1913, to become effective March 1, 1913, reads in part as foilowfl: 

"rules for foreign-going passenger steamers, including emigrant shifs. 

"Rule A. A ship of this class shall carry lifeboats in such number and of mA 
capacity as shall be sufficient to accommodate the total number of persons which ii 
carried, or which the ship is certified to carry, whichever number is the greater." 

The report of the committee on life-saving appliances provides approv^ lifeboati 
for 75 per cent of all persons on board, using tne following language: 

"If the beforementioned lifeboats do not provide accommodations for at least 7f 
per cent of the persons, then additional lifeboats of either class 1 or class 2 shall bi 
provided, so tJiat there is accommodation for at least 75 per cent of all persons. 

"(c) Accommodations shall be provided either in lifeboats of class 1 or class 2 o 
by pontoon rafts of approved type and construction for all persons." 

The British law dealing with the manning of life-saving appliances, issued by th< 
Board of Trade, 1911, determines the number of seamen in tne deck department o 
emigrant ships and passenger vessels coming under that desi^^nation. The scheduL 
is based upon the cubic feet capacitv of boats (carrying capacity of boats), and detei 
mines that four out of every five of the deck crew shall be "bona fide able-bodiw 
seamen," or men of higher rating; that is to say, men of greater experience and hold 
ing positions on board ship as a result of such greater experience and higher skill 
The manning of lifeboats adopted by the committee on life-saving appliances pic 
vides that — 

"(a) For each boat or raft required to be carried on the ship efficient boat hand 
must be carried in accordance with the following scale: 

*' If the boat or raft is capable of carrying — 

60 persons or less, 3 efficient boat hands; 

61 to 85 persons, 4 efficient boat hands; 
86 to 110 persons, 5 efllioient boat hands; 
111 to 160 persons, 6 efficient boat hands; 
161 to 210 persons, 7 efficient boat hands; 

'•'and one additional efficient boat liund shall be carried for every extra 50 persoc 
which the boat is capable of carryins:. 

''(h) An 'efficient boat hand' shall be defined as a member of the crew who hB 
been trained in laiinchino:, lowering, and detaching lifeboats, and in the use of oari 
and has proved himself qualified to' handle lifeboats. Efficient boat hands shall b 
able to understand and answer the orders relating to lifeboat service and duties. EfE 
cient boat hands shall have a certificate as such, which certificate shall be issued unde 
the authority of the administration." 

The "efficient boat hand " may come from the deck force or deck depart.ment; fror 
amongst the firemen and coal passers — the engineers' department; or from amongf 
the cooks, stewards, or waiters — the steward's department. They need not undeJ 
stand the language of the officers of the vessel. The rule was deliberately so draw- 
that the orders of the officers could be transmitted through interpreters. This is i. 
distinct opposition to the standard laid down by our courts who have held in the cas 
of In re Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 0. C. V. 64, page 410, that a crew which does no 
understand the orders of the officers is so inefficient that it forfeits the vessel's right t> 
limitation of liability under our law. It is further in distinct opposition to the actioi 
of the House of Representatives in the Sixty-second Congress and the action of th' 
Senate of the United States in the special session of the Sixty-third Congress, where i 
was enacted that 75 per cent of the crew of a vessel in each department thereof mue 
understand the orders of the officers of such vessel. The number is a further reductioi 
of the legal standard in this, that the present presumption of law is that all the cret 
of a lifeboat shall be efficient and the crew of a lifeboat is, according to its size an< 
carrying capacity, from 7 to 11 or more. The report provides that there shall be life 
boat dmls m harbor at least once every fortnight. The report of the committee oi 
life-saving appliances, in dealing with old ships, pro\'ides — 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 43 

*' (a) A boat or raft which has been accepted by the admiDistration of a contract- 
ing State on board an existing vessel may be accepted in place of a lifeboat or life 
;n^, respectively, until the 1st January, 1930. 

'*(&) The req[uirement that pontoon lifeboats shall have the bottom and deck 
^ of two tiucknesses with textile material between and the full amount of free- 
specified for boats of this type need not be insisted upon until the 1st Janu- 
ary, 1920. 

"((/) The requirement that all boats and davits shall be of sufficient strength to 
enable them to be si^ely lowered when loaded with their full complement of per- 
moB and equipment, and the requirement that the davits must be fitted with a gear 
of sufficient power to turn out the boat against a list need not be insisted uxx)n." 

New vessels are defined as vessels whose keels are laid three months or more after 
the date of ratification of the convention, so that existing vessels mav continue to 
carry their present life-saving appliances and a crew of a lower standard than the 
one accepted to-day. 

The report from the committee on wireless telegraphy reads, in part, as follows: 

"(a) All ships engaged in international trade ana having on board 50 persons or 
more, including bom passengers and crew, or either, shall be fitted with a wireless- 
telegraphy apparatus. 

"(h) Proviaed always that each of the signatorjr States may, if the route and the 
conoitions of the voyages are such as to renaer a wireless installation unreasonable or 
unnecessary, exempt from this obligation — 

" (i) Ships which do not go more than 150 sea miles from land during their voyages; 

"(ii) Ships which do not regularly or usually have 50 or more persons on board, 
but which take on board for a part of their voyages cargo hands, provided that this 
exception shall not be granted to ships trading from one continent to another or going 
outside the limits of 30° north and 30° south." 

On the question of keeping a constant watch, vessels having 75 or more passengers 
and an average speed of 15 knots or more, or vessels of an average speed of 13 knots 
and having on board 200 persons or more and on a voyage extending 500 miles between 
two consecutive ports, shall keep a constant watch. Others are regulated in a differ- 
ent way — tiat is to say, they need not have two skilled wireless operators. This Is 
in direct opposition to our law approved June 23, 1912, which provides, in an act to 
amend an act entitled "An act to require apparatus and operators for radio commu- 
nication on certain steamers," approved June 24, 1910 — 

"That from and after October 1, 1913, it shall be unlawful for any steamer of the 
United States or of any foreign country navigating the ocean or the Great liakes and 
licensed to carry or carrying 50 or more persons, including passengers or crew, or both 
to leave or attempt to leave any part of the United States unless such steamer shall 
be equipped with an efficient apparatus for radio communication, in good working 
order, capable of transmitting and receiving messages over a distance of at least 100 
miles, day or night. * * * The radio equipment must be in charge of two or 
more persons skilled in the use of such apparatus, one or the other of whom shall be 
on duty at all times while the vessel is being navigated." 

To this our law has the following proviso: 

"Provided^ That on cargo steamers, in lieu of the second operator provided for in 
this act, there mav be substituted a member of the crew or other person who shall be 
duly certified and entered in the ship 's log as competent to receive and understand 
distress caUs or other usual calls indicating danger and to aid in maintaining a constant 
wireless watch so far as required for the safety of Hfe. " 

The report of the committee on certificates contains in paragraphs 7 and S, the fol- 
lowing: 

"7. Each signatory State shall accept the certificates of the other signatory States 
for all purposes covered by the convention as of force equal to that of the certificate 
issued to its own ships. 

"8. A vessel holding the above-mentioned certificate shall be subject to control 
by the officials in ports of other signatory States in so far as those officials may ascertain 
that there is a valid certificate on board, and if necessary that the conditions of her 
B^worthiness conform substantially to her certificate so as to enable her to go to sea 
without danger to her passengers and crew." 

As I understand these clauses our surveyors' rights on foreign vessels in our ports 
will be, imder ordinary conditions, limited to ascertaining whether the vessel has an 
international certificate, and, if so, that it is not too old. As I understand the existing 
condition, it is that foreign vessels coming to American ports must come up to the 
same standard as laid down for American vessels unless exemptions have been made 
by domestic law. In other words, that these things are now under the control of our 
own Government and that these quoted sections in the certificate will surrender that 



44 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

power and make it a matter of inteniational treaty. I do not undertake to pass any 
opinion upon whether this is in contravention to our instructionB but it seems to me 
to be BO. As a result of the above-quoted facts and what I undesrtood and now under- 
stand to be the facts, I followed the dictates of my conscience and tendered my resigna- 
tion in order that I mieht come back here to report the matter to you. 

I accepted the appointment in the belief that our own commission would respect 
and stand for such actions dealing with safety at sea as were part of our law and as nad 
been determined by the House of Representatives in the Sixty-second Confess and 
by the United States Senate in the extraordinary session of the present Congress. 
After being informed of my appointment I received a document purporting to be 
instructions to the American aelegation concerning efficiency of officers and crewt 
of vessels and dealing with efficient men to handle the boats. I at once submitted 
a communication to the Secretary of Conunerce in which I tried to analyze these 
purported instructions, finally stating that I could not accept them as instructioiii. 
His answer was that they were not instructions but tentative suggestions. Later ob. 
I received from Conunissioner Chamberlain three documents, marked "Confidential." 
They are records of preliminary meetings between representatives of Great Britain 
and Germany and Great Britain and France, and a memorial of instructions from 
the imperial Government of Germany to its delegates. In the very hasty examination 
of the same that it was possible for me to make prior to my departure I found that 
they, in so far as boats and men to handle them were concemea, corresponded with 
the so-called tentative suggestions for the instruction of the delegates oi the United 
States. In the committee on life-saving appliances of the conference I quickly 
found that no changes would be made from the agreements tentatively arrive! at in 
the preliminary conference between those nations. In the second meeting of our 
delegation on November 12 it was determined that — 

" No member of this commission shall advocate in subcommittee or in full conference 
any proposition upon which the sense of the commission has not been ascertained, nor 
any proposition not sanctioned by the majority vote of the commission." 

I had tentatively determined for myself the principles that I would follow and I 
had intended to distribute the following statement to at least the English-speaking 
members of the committee on life-saving appliances: 

" Bear in mind, when a ship is lost the shipowner may make a profit, the owner 
may get more than the value of his ship; the merchant may lose nothing, but may, 
and very often does, get more than the value of the cargo back. In the same way the 
underwriter averages his losses, and on the whole makes a profit on the insurance of 
the ship out of his premium. 

''Joseph Chamberlain. 

"LIMFPATIONS op shipowners' liability was unknown to COICMON LAW. 

*' During the time preceding the enactment of limitation of shipowners' liability, the 
shipowner was responsible in damages to the traveler or shipper or their heirs for any 
loss of life, or injury to life, or loss or injury to property, other than arising out d 
'acts of God' or 'acts of public enemies.' 

"The shipowner might lose his all by wrongful act, neglect or default, if he failed 
in furnishing a vessel seaworthy in all respects in her hull, tackle, apparel, furniture, 
and crew. 

"Thus safety of life and property at sea had for its support one of the dominating 
forces in individuals and associations, that of self-interest and self-preservation. 

" In Great Britain, the laws of 1854, in the United States the laws of 1851, deprived 
safety of this powerful support and it became necessary to enact laws providing for 
inspection of passenger vessels, in order that the traveler might have some considera- 
tion. 

"The limitation of shipowners' liability began in Great Britain in the time of 
George II, and was extended under George III. It then dealt chiefly with collision, 
and had application to freight only. In 1854 it was extended so as to have application 
to life ana iniury. Liability was then limited so that no more than £15 per regis- 
tered ton could be collected from the owners of the vessel; in 1862 the liability was 
reduced to £8 per registered ton in case of freight; but liability for loss of life and 
injury sustained was left at £15^ which is the total liability in any case. 

"Limitation of shipowners' liability in the United States was enacted on March 3, 
1851, amended on June 26, 1884, and further amended to the so-called Harter Act 
on February 13, 1893. 

"Laws providing for inspection and regulation of emigrant ships were enacted in 
1854 in Great Britain. 



-. 



SAFETY OF UFE AT SEA. 45 

*'ln the United States the inspection law was passed in 1871, the passenger act in 
1882. 

'^Laws are not enacted in either country except to meet and comply with a some- 
what general demand and then only to deal with some recognized evil and the enact- 
nent of these laws signify the reco^tion that something must be done to assist the 
conscience of the shipowner since ms self-interest has been so much reduced. 

"The laws dealing with emigrant and passenger vessels were general in both coun- 
tries, and the power to make rules under the general laws were conferred in Great 
Britain upon the Board of Trade, in the United States upon the Bureau of Inspection. 

"The power to make laws having been delegated, any rules or laws made and obeyed 
would very largely act as a bar to any accusation of wrongful act, negligence, or default, 
md thus tend to an election on the part of the shipowner to re&in from using the 
Mndtation of shipowner's liability and to stand trial under the common law. He may 
I fttany rate try one case, denying negligence, and if he loses he may seek shelter of 
limitation of liability in the rest. Laws or rules adopted must therefore be sufficient 
to ^varantee reasonable safety or the shipowner will be able to shed responsibility 
while safety is diminishing. 

"After the enactment of inspection laws and the passenger acts it was found that 
whenever the rules were not sufficiently effective and definite — when the standards 
adopted were not sufficiently high — they served no practical purpose in securing 
aafetv but were used by shipowners as a shield against claims for damages, and both 
the rarliament of Great Britain and the Congress of the United States from time to 
time laid down some additional principles, established new or higher standards, and 
extended the powers of their departments vested with power to make regulations. 

"Up to the enactment of the passenger act, the number of passengers to be carried 
was frankly based upon tonnage in so far as it was not based upon discretion arising out 
of possible loss to owner. The passenger act of Great Britain defined the meaning of 
the words ' ' emigrant ship " in paragraph 2G8 of merchant shipping acts and of passenger 
steamer, in paragraph 267 merchant shipping acts, and then based a number of passen- 
gers upon the deck space with the provision that there should be no more tban two 
passengers decks, and that the deck next below water line should be the lowest 
passenger deck. 

"A firther proviso was attached that a limited number of cabin passengers based 
upon the tonnage of the vessel might be carried in the cabins or deck houses. The 
cabin passengers were provided with 36 clear superficial feet of space, and it was pro- 
vided that no one should be considered a cabin passenger unless such space was allotted 
to him. All others were considered as steerage passengers, and they were to have 15 
clear superficial feet on the upper passenger deck or 18 clear superficial feet on the 
lower deck, the height between these decks must not be less than 6 feet, and under 
certain conditions the passengers on the lower passenger deck were provided with 25 
clear superficial feet. 

"The law providing that no passengers should be carried on more than two decks 
was repealed in 1906 to such extent as to make it read ^no passengers on more than 
one deck below the water line,* thus leaving the shipowner to have as many pas- 
Beneer decks as might be consistent with stability. AH passenger decks are meas- 
ured in the tonnage, so that the number of passengers to be carried is still based upon 
the tonnage. 

"The passenger act of the United States provided for a minimum height between 
the decks and that 21 superficial feet should be measured for each passenger on the 
lowest passenger deck, or 18 superficial feet on other decks. The number of passen- 
ger decKS was always left at the shipowner's discretion, but the equivalent of 1-ton 
Bpace was allotted to each passenger. 

"It will be seen that the principle underlying the regulations as to the passengers 
is 'tonnage.' The same rule of 'tonnage' has been followed as to life-saving appli- 
ances. 

"It is respectfully submitted that there is, or ought to be, a fundamental distinc- 
tion between 'cargo' and 'passengers,' and that no vessel should be permitted to 
take any more passengers than she can carry safely with health and reasonable com- 
fort. 

"No passenger vessel should be permitted to go to sea imless she has the projper 
appliances for the eadety of passengers in case of disaster to the vessel herself. The 
best buUt vessels will under certain conditions float but a few hours; the only safety 
under Uiese conditions consists in boats in which the passengers can take refuge 
while awaiting assistance, and the boats themselves are of little or no value unless 
the vessel is provided with a crew which can lower these boats, ^ take them away 
from the ship^ side, and with proper appliances can manage them in rough seas. 



46 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

"Of course, it is perfectly well understood that there are times at sea when boatB^ 
can not be used, because they can neither be lowered nor managed after they aw 
in the water. Those conditions, however, are rare; they are in Qie true sense the 
'act of God,' and should have no consideration in any discussion or in any regula-" 
tions dealing with 'safety of life at sea.' ^ 

''They are a condition in which the handiwork of man and the powers of man 
are of no avail. 

"It is notable in the legislation of both countries that shipowners have resisted^ 
new and specific legislation as long as the public would in any way tolerate sudi 
resistance; but step by step as disasters proved the necessity for them beyond any 
peradventure, specific rules have been made for the building and the interior arrange- 
ment of the vessel, for the engine and boilers, and for such life-saving appliances a&^ 
were calculated to be used by single individuals for the purpose of flotation for av 
very short time; boats and men to handle them had received no real consideraticHi 
up to the loss of the Titanic. There had been many serious disasters at sea, but they 
had not produced that earnestness of feeling which compels action. 

"The development has now reached the point in which the question is of life- 
saving appliances that are to be used by several at one time for a longer period and 
of the manning and management of those appliances. 

"Safety demands that boats and men to handle them be based upon the number 
of passengers as distinct from tonnage. Up to the present it has been a question of 
tonnage and the property interests involved. 

"Shipowners are resisting the present demand for 'boats for all' because it will 
reduce the number of passengers that may now be carried. Boats occupy room, 
which could otherwise be occupied by passengers. They resist it for the further 
reason that boats predicate skilled men to handle them ana this means additional ex- 
pense. Boats reduce earning capacity — men increase expenses. 

"It is true that the owner will shift the expense on to the traveler and shipper by 
higher rates, but he now permits the public to believe that the vessels are thoroughly 
seaworthy both in their hull, equipment and manning; he points to the certificate of 
inspection, and discreetly keeps silent about its real meaning. To insure reasonable 
safety the certificate should really mean what it suggests to the average reader, other- 
wise it should state that this particular vessel is exempt from the rule of 'boats for all,' 
and 'efficient men to manage the boats' when boats and men are needed. 

"If it be deemed proper to exempt certain vessels from the rule of 'boats for all,' 
and some real seamen in each boat, the fact should be clearly placed on all the passen- 
ger tickets sold for such vessels, and should further be plainly stated in all the adver- 
tisements issued by or on behalf of the vessel. 

"The prospectus should tell the truth and if the passenger then chooses to go in 
such a vessel he would do so with his eyes open. He would not be paying for reason- 
able safety under the mistaken idea that the Government had examined and certified 
the vessel as properly equipped with life-saving appliances and seamen for the efficient 
handling of same. 

"The element of safety dependent upon self-interest having been swept away by the 
law, the law must fxirnish an equivalent in some other law that shall give at least 
equal safety and shall be equally binding upon all shipowners." 

Under the resolution adopted by our delegation I felt that I might follow these prin- 
ciples for myself but that I had no right to submit them to members of the committee 
unless I first obtained the permission of our delegation. I had already sufficient 
reasons to believe that I would not obtain any such permission, and on November 26 
I was instructed as follows: 

"Definition: An efficient boat hand shall be a man trained in the launching, lower- 
ing, detaching, and handling of lifeboats and the use of oars, and shaU also have served 
at least one year on vessels navigating the ocean, bays, sounds, or large inland seas or 
lakes. ' Efficient boat hands shall be able to understand and answer the orders of the 
officers relating to lifeboat service and duties. The efficient boat hand shall have a 
Government certificate as such. Crews shall be drilled with lifeboats, at fire quarters, 
and inclosing bulkhead doors, under regulations prescribed by the administration 
concerned." 

The chairman of the commission, the Hon. Joshua W. Alexander, opposed this 
instruction as being contrary to safety and the position taken by the Senate, the House 
Representatives, and the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor. I supported him to 
the best of my ability, but the instructions were driven through, mainly by the 
insistence of Commissioners Chamberlain, Uhler, and Bertholf, and upon a vote 
eight of the commissioners voted in favor of these instructions; two — Commissioners 
Alexander and Furuseth — in the negative. Having in mind the rules in the com- 
mittee and in the conference, I realized that I would not be permitted to even defend 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 47 

e position taken by the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Secretaries 
Commerce and Labor, and I felt that I ought to resign then. 1 so informed the chair- 
am of our commission, who suggested that 1 continue. 1 did so with the purpose of 
king every legitimate opportunity to oppose both the tentative propositions in 
e agenda and the instructions of our own delegation. I consulted with some mem- 
jrs of the committee itself, and they advised me that I would have some oppor- 
nity to place before the committee the position which I explained to them and 
tiich I held to be the right point of view. My action after that is described in the 
llowing statement, which I wrote and submitted to our commission as a short review 

the proceedings of the committee on life-saving appliances: 

**The loss of the Titanic crystalized the feeling that something must be done; the 
?ople demanded action on part of the separate nations. The shipowners, especially 
. tne Atlantic passenger trade, met the public demand by furnishing ''boats tor all. 
he British Board of Trade, prior to the Titanic disaster, had formulated and issued 
lies for the manning of emigrant ships, under which the "deck hands" must be 
.en of the rating of able seamen, and determined the number of deck hands to be 
uried, not more than one in five of whom might be ordinary seamen. On January 
^ 1913, the board of trade issued regulations, to become effective March 1, 1913, 
ealing with foreign-going passenger steamers, including emigrant ships, as follows: 

" 'A ship of this class shall carry lifeboats in such number and of such capacity as 
lall be sufficient to accommodate the total number of persons which is carried or 
hich the ship is certified to carry, whichever number is greater.' 

"It will be seen that these regulations, issued in response to popular demand, are 
ased upon the safety of life and take very little thought of either tonnage or divi- 
ends. This is changed by the committee on boats and davits, as will be seen from 

synopsis of the report. 

"The committee on boats and davits, on life-saving appliances, on which I have 
een an humble member, has had under consideration the questions of appliances 
)r laimching of boats (davits), the number and kind of boats, the manning of the 
loats, the means of preventing, detecting, and fighting fire, and the organization of 
he slup's crew for the purposes of making the rules effective. 

"The committee determmed that boats for 75 per cent of persons on board would 
»e sufficient, and that the remaining 25 per cent should be provided with rafts. I 
urged upon the committee that this would ver>' likely lead to panics; that it is a 
reduction from present standard laid down by law at least in Great Britain; that 
ihere was no reasonable certainty that the crew and the men from the steerage would 
be willing to accept the rafts. It might result in the men with the physical strength 
ofidng it to take the boats and leave the other persons to do the best tney could. This 
irg;ument was of no avail, and upon a vote being taken by nations it resulted in the 
United States and Norway voting against rafts and all the other nations for them. 

*'I then su^ested that the absence of 'boats for alP should be placed on the tickets 
in the advertisements for passengers and on the vessel's certificate, in order that the 
passenger might choose for him or herself between the vessels which had 'boats for 
«U' and those that had not. To this I could get no second and no support even in 
our own del^ation on the committee and it was ruled out. Sir Norman Hill was 
mated the opportunity to explain why no support was given. The substance of 
m statement was that such publication would prejudice the passengers against such 
vessels, and, believing that rafts were, under certain circumstances, more efficient 
Bian boats, it would be 'wrong for them to sanction any action calculated to deter 
he traveling public from sailing in vessels wliich are equipped by the most effective 
Deans of saving life.' 

"Why, under those conditions, there should be only 25 per cent of rafts permitted, 
ad why the traveling public should not be informed I am not able to understand. 
6 me it suggested that if rafts are the most efficient means of saving life why carry 
^ats? Andwhy would not vessels equipped with rafts be chosen by the passengers? 

"On the question of manning of boats the committee adopted the following as a 
^finition of an efficient boat hand : 

"'(6) An "efficient boat hand" shall be defined as a member of the crew who 
%a been trained in the launching, lowering, and detaching of lifeboats and in the use 
' oars, and has proved himself qualified to handle lifeboats. Efficient boat liands 
lall be able to understand and answer the orders relating to lifeboat service and 
ities. Efficient boat hands shall have a certificate as sucn, which certificate shall 
3 issued under the authority of the administration.' 

"Having thus determined the kind of men who are to be depended upon to manage 
tats, the committee determined the number by specifying that a boat having less 
an 60 persons shall have 3, less than 85 shall have 4, less than 105 shall have 5, 
» than 160 shall have 6, and leaa than 210 shall have 7 eff\c\^iv\.\io^\.\va.TA^. ''^^^ 



48 SAFETY OF UFE AT SEA. 

is a distinct reduction of the present standard, because courts have held that all 
men in the boats must know tneir duties and understand the orders of the officers. 

''On this question of the manning of the boats our delegation had met and 
lengthy discussion had by vote, 8 to 2, adopted the following to be submitted to 
committee, viz: 

" ' An efficient boat hand shall be deemed to be a man trained in the laun 
lowering, and handling of lifeboats and the use of oars, and shall also have 
at least one year on vessels navigating the ocean, bays, sounds, or large inland 
Efficient boat hands shall be able to understand and answer the orders of the offi 
relating to lifeboat service and duties. The efficient boat hand shall have a Go* 
emment certificate as such.' 

"This was submitted by Mr. XJhler and met with strong opposition. After soi 
discussion I entered the strongest protest I could bv stating that as a practical n 
I could not agree to either the American or English propositions, that the propc 
are not tending to safety: ' It is not an improvement; it is, in fact, a lowering of 
standard that already exists. * * * Germany, Austria, Italy, and France are vS 
interested because meir men are trained in the navy. * * * If I had a vol! 
which I could use I would cast it against the whole proposition,' because as a sailol 
I knew that it meant lowering of the standard of safety, and I closed by stating: 

'' ' A hundred years ago, before the days of insurance and limitation of shipowneai 
liability, the shixx)wner demanded four years' experience in those whom he considersi 
qualified to take care of his proper^; now he considers a few trials enough to save lifew 

It was, however, of no avail. The one year was stricken out; the understandiin 
of orders is so modified that the orders may come through an interpreter and tihj 

fovemments may delegate the issuance of a certificate to the master of the vessel 
t is indeed difficult to understand who else, unless national legislation shall intei 
vene, can have any authority to interfere between the master and the seaman, sines 
no standard is laid down for the master or the inspector. By what is "efficient" • 
be measured? Who is to do the measuring? The work is private work and tiie em 
ployer will, in the absence of definite law, be the judge of the efficiency; but thft 
IS the situation now, hence the only change is to set up a standard, which, whil* 
dependent upon the shipowner, must result in screening nim from any responsibility 
to the traveler either under the common law or the limitation of shipowners' liability 
To me this is safety of dividends, not of life. 

"If the same general terms had been used about boats and davits, this might b* 
understood, upon the theory that uniformity is not important or even desmible 
but in the matter of davits the rules are most specific. In new vessels they mufl 
have gear which will permit them to be swung out against a list of 15° and must h* 
strong enough to permit boats to be lowered with their full complement of person 
and equipment, and this must be ascertained by real tests. Most minute rules ar 
laid down about boats and their equipments, and rafts and their equipments. Thu 
committee did not only determine their carrying capacity, their freeboard, thei 
stability and buoyancy, but how these qualifications shall be ascertained. Th< 
leaving of the qualifications of the human element to the discretion of the master aii< 
owner was therefore deliberate. Safety was not permitted to place serious dutie 
upon the owner. 

"When it came to determining what should be considered new vessels it was natuT 
ally determined that vessels built or building at a specific date should be classed » 
old, vessels built after such date as new. 

"With reference to old vessels it was determined that they may continue to carrj 
their present accepted boats and rafts until 1920; that the requirements on ne"* 
vessels that pontoon boats built of wood shall be double bottom and deck, witt 
textile between in order to prevent leaking, need not on old vessels be insisted upoi 
until 1920, and that the requirements that davits shall have gear to turn them oul 
against a 15° list, and be strong enough for boats to be lowered with full complemenl 
01 persons and equipment, need not be insisted upon in old vessels. 

The rules are to apply in ocean passenger vessels ^oing 200 miles or more froit 
shore; passenger vessel is defined to be a vessel carrying more than 12 passenger! 
from a port in a contracting state to any port outside the contracting state, and tnal 
it be left to each contracting state to specify what vessels it considers * ocean going* 

" When it is remembered that the average age of a vessel is 20 years, the resolutio* 
about davits is most interesting. It recognizes, first, that davits are not now d 
sufficient strength; second, that alterations would be too expensive. Nothing ba^ 
the consideration of expense could dictate either this resolution or the resolutiot 
that boats held unsafe might be carried for anotiier six years. Of course with th< 
men to be carried as * efficient boat hands' boats matter very little. Lifeboats are 
when properly manned, real life-saving appliances; when manned by men who ar^ 
not real seamen ti^ey are of no value. 



8APETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 49 

The shipowner insists upon being permitted t(» get his men from anywhere, r^gard- 
3 of previous experience or even knowledge of the language of the officers, and the 
Domittee, taking care of the shipowners' interests, agreed with the shipowner. I 
mot in the least question their sincerity; the point of view was that the snfety would 
lereby be best suoserved; but my experience as a sailor makes it impt)8sible for me 
I agree t^ the action which resulted; and safety at sea depends more on the human 
Innent than on anv other factor. The drift from the sea on the part of strong and 
rarageons men will continue, and safety will continue to diminish." 
It was intended as reasons why our commiouon should not agree to the action taktn 
I the committee on life-saving appliances. When I sought to read it to our com- 
ission that privilege was denied , not by a formal vote, but otherwise . The chairmaii 
ited that he certainly wanted to read it. Those who objected stated that I might 
' it with the commission. I did so and verbally submitted my resignation to the 
amission, upon which J was informed that I could only resign to the Presiden,t of 
United States, whereupon the meeting took a recess for dinner. I then wrote knd 
it the telegram in which I tendered my resignation to you. At the reconvening of 
e commission the same evening 1 handed a copy of the telegram to the chairman, 
r. Alexander, settled up as far as expense's were concerned with the commission, and 
Jen stated that I was goiner back to the United States on Saturday. If the com- 
lission paid my fare, I would go in the cabin. If not, I would pay my own fare and 
in the steerage. The chairman, Mr. Alexander, at once issued orders for my fare 
jm London to New York. 

I was moved to take this action, first, because the committee reports had been sab- 

litted; second, because under the rules of the conference it could not be reached by 

ly protest, unless it came under authority of a national delegation; third, because it 

iS perfectly plain to me that the majority of our delegation would determine to give 

pport to the reports of tJie different committees. Being entirely out of sympathy 

m action such as I have described and others of less importance which I have not 

intioned, by remaining I could do nothing except wait until the convention was to 

signed. I could then have withheld my signature and made a report on my reasons 

r 80 doing. I felt that in the interest of safety of the lives of passengers at sea I 

Ight accomplish more by returning to the United States and submitting my report 

toyou. 

There was of course another alternative: I might have given serious consideration 
b the fact that freight vessels will not come under these rules and that smaller and 
iKdium-sized passenger vessels will carry sufficient of a deck crew to furnish two able 
pBamen or men of a higher rating for the boats under that section of the seamen's bill 
*Mcli provides for the general manning of vessels, a matter which the committee on 
fife-eavmg appliances had not touched, except by stating that they should be effi- 
cientljr and sufficiently manned; but it appeared to me that even to consider such a 
Bioposition would be to sacrifice the lives of passengers and that it would be treason 
wtne mission upon which I had been sent. 
Mr. President, I may in my ignorance have violated some of the rules or proprieties 
ii fiverning such a mission, but I had to follow my conscience and do what I did. 
Respectfully submitted. 

Andrew Furuseth. 
Washington, D. C, January 12 ^ 1914. 

To the PREsroBNT op the United States. 

On the 13 th of January I received from Secretary Redfield the 
following letter: 

Department op Commerce, 

Opfice op the Secretary, 
Washington, January IS, 1914' 

My Dear Sir: Your memorandum is received. I understand that the Intema- 
1 tbnal Conference on Safety of Life at Sea adopted at the outset of its session a rule 
6 ftftt the proceedings of the conference and of its committees should be in executive 
hi iBBBion and that information concerning conclusions should be communicated only 
12 Quough its president. Lord Mersey. TJnder these circumstances, I do not think it 
V irise to receive the report of which you speak until the conference has adjourned and 
fitt American delegation is prepared to submit its report. 
Yours, very truly, 

William C. Redpield, Secretary. 
Mr. Andrew Furuseth, 

Washington, D. C. 

38444—14 4 ■ 



50 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Under date of January 14 I received the following: 

Depabtment of Commerce, 
Office of the Secretary, 
WashingUm^ January 14, 1914, 
My Dear Sir: I have received your letter of the 12th. In accordance with 
to you of yesterday, let me say that I do not deem it correct to receive this i 
from you individually in advance, for the reason stated in mine of the 13th. I 
also add that on the 13th I wrote the Ftesident to a similar effect, and this co: 
nication has been ai)proved by him. Your report to him has been sent to me, 
I have advised that it be withneld and be not considered until the full report of 
American delegation is also received. 
Yours, very truly, 

William C. Redfield, Secretary, 
I Mr. Andrew Furuseth, 

Washington, D. C. 

To which I sent tlie following answer: 

Washington, D. C, January IS, 1914. 
Hon. William C. Bedfielo, 

Secretary of Commerce , Washington^ D. C. 

My Dear Mr. Secretary: Yours of the 14th instant received. 
I write to thank you for your kindness and to explain that I did not have any i 
that it could be improper, under the action adopted by the conference, to fun 
information to the Government under which the delegate was actine and which 
in part represented. As I understood it, the delegates to the conference kept 
touch with their respective Governments. I do not see any other way in whidi 
' could bring the information to you and to the President. My anxiety was that yt 
should have the information. As I understand you the memorandum will be coiir 
eidered when the report is submitted, and I hope that in the meantime you 
forgive me if I, feeling the importwice of this matter, may have acted in any 
that might be considered improper. 

Loyally and respectfully, yours, 

Andrew Furuseth. ^ 

Coming now to the convention itself, I said in the beginning thai 
it surrenders the jurisdiction of the United States over lorei^ 
vessels coming to its ports. My justification for saying that is i]j| 
article 60 of the treaty, which provides : 

The safety certificate issued under the authority of a contracting State shall hm 
accepted by the Governments of the other contracting States for all purposes coiHj 
ered by this convention. It shall be regarded by the Governments of the othdi 
contracting States as having the same force as the certificates issued by them to theJ^ 
own vessels. (Art. 60, p. 24.) ^ 

Article 61, page 24, provides that the officers of the State in whidll 
the vessel is lying may go on board of the vessel to ascertain that 
it has a valid safety certmcate, but it is Umited to that unless ''and,^ 
if necessary, that the conditions of the vesseVs seaworthiness cor- 
respond substantially with the particulars of that certificate; that 
is to say, so that the vessel can proceed to sea without danger to 
the passengers and the crew.*' 

That would leave the impression that you could inspect and 
ascertain if the vessel is in accordance with the certificate, but 
section 57, page 23, of the convention says that the Governmen*' 
concerned — that is, the Government issuing the certificate — acceptfi^^ 
all and full responsibility for the certificate. It says: 

In every case the Government concerned fully guarantees the completeness and 
efficiency of the inspection and survey. 

TTbie safety certificate shall be issued either by the officers of the State to which 
the vessel belongs, or by any other person duly authorized by that State. In either 
case the State to which the vessel belongs assumes full responsibility for the cer- 
tificate. 



uunr 

1 



SAFETY OF UFE AT SEA. 



51 



that to question the certificate seems to me to be to question 
good faith of the Government that issues it, although the cer- 
late as such can be issued by registry or classification societies, 
much for the certificate, 
inator Hitchcock. It may be issued how ? 
'. FuBUSETH. By classification societies. The government con- 
led may delegate the power to issue the certificate of inspection 
anybody that it sees nt, being at all times responsible for their 
ion, of course. 

)n the question of radio-telegraphy there is no question but what 

ire was a distinct reduction from .the law adopted by the United 

;tes in the last Congress. The law of the United States definitely 

ktes that any vessel that has 50 or more persons on board must 

fve a radio installation and keep a constant watch, unless she is a 

i^ht vessel, or unless she goes less than 200 miles from port to port, 

in case she is a freight vessel one of the skilled operators may be 

itituted by a watcher. That is the substance of the radio law as 

5ted by the Congress. 

r^The substance of the radio agreement by the convention is 'that 

'e shall be radio instaJlations for where tnere are 50 passengers or 

i, but a constant watch is only to be had under certain condi- 

. In other words, the cry for help may be given, but may not 

,heard^ 

ApiJmonof article 34, page 16, of the convention reads as follows: 

Lwhile the high contracting parties undertake to require, from the date of the 
lification of the present convention, subject to the delays specified below, a con- 
ittous watch on me following vessels: 

(1) Vessels whose average speed in service exceeds 13 knots which have on board 
persons or more, and which in the course of their voyage go a distance of more 
Q 500 sea miles between two consecutive ports, when these vessels are placed in 
I second class. 

[(2) Vessels in the second class for the whole of the time during which they are 
than 500 sea miles from the nearest coast. 

It may, of course, be possible that another construction may be 
it upon this; but I can not find any other construction to it myself, 
mg as I may. And since that is the situation, it seems that it 
luld be seriously inquired into. I hold that it reduces the Ameri- 
standard, and, what is more, the report of the commissioners on 
_ back admits that it does. 
Senator HncHCOCK. The American standard is the highest in the 
>rld? 
«..i Mr. FuBUSETH. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. Does not this standard raise the standard of 
number of countries ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. . Yes, sir; I guess so. Some had none. 
Senator Hitchcock. So that the average would be better ? 
Mr. FuRUSETH. The average would be better. Now all the ves- 
1, if they go 500 miles or more, or wherever they are, they may go 
ito second class; that is to say, if they want to they may go into 
5ond class, where they employ one skilled operator and one watcher, 
long as they are all the time on constant watch. There can be 
doubt that there is a reduction on boats, the committee on which 

served 

Senator Hitchcock. Could we not maintain in force our present 
\w, even if we signed that conference ? 



52 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 



Mr. FuRUSETH. No, •sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. Could we not require our own vessels 
have a greater degree of protection, even if we agreed with all natk 
of the world that everybody should have a different protection? 

Mr. FuKUSETH. That, of course, you could do, but that inv( 
another proposition. You woi Id put a heavier burden, upon 
own vessels than you put upon any other vessels. 

Senator Hitchcock. I thought you were clatming we were^ 
ducing, if we made this convention, the degree of safety we pro^ 
for our own vessels ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Unquestionably, and which we at the pi 
time insist on being adopted by all vessels coming to and leai 
our ports, whether they are ours or not. 

Senator Root. Do you hold that this treaty repealed our sti 
tory requirements on our own vessels ? 

Mr. P URUSETH. There can not be any doubt about that. Hj 
not a question of our own vessels only; it is a question of ol 
vessels. 

Senator Root. I understand, but on our own vessels ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. On our own vessels I do not know whether 
would or not. That is beyond me. I understand the last will 
Congress is to prevail, whether it be a treaty or not, but I do 
know anything about it. 

Now, the question of lifeboats, it is specifically stated, firstl 
standard was enacted, then it was stated now many lifeboats th' 
should be, and in article 42, page 160, of the regulations the rule 

(a) The minimum capacity required by thes^ regulations. 

(b) A capacity sufficient to accommodi^te 75 per cent of the persons on board. 
The remainder of the accommodation required shall be provided either in boat 

class 1 or class 2, or in pontoon rafts of an approved type. 

The commission in its report says that 75 per cent will be suffick 
to take the passengers in almost all cases when the vessels leave 
United States going to Europe, and that there will be only a coij 
paratively few mstances where there will be any chance of any 
mvolved; that there will be enough boats to take care of the pi 
senders; but there are 800,000 or more passengers coming this 
to the United States every year than there are going from the Uni^ 
States, so that coming to the United States the number of life n 
in case they are needed at all, will be needed very badly. 

Then, in article 42, page 19, it goes on to regulate the strength 
the boats. It says boats shall be strong enough to be lowered doi 
ships' sides with its full complement of passengers and equipment.' 

Article 49, page 21, says: 

The davits shall be of such strength that the boats can be lowered with their 
complement of persons and equipment, the vessel being assumed to have a list of 1 
degrees. 

The davits must be fitted with a gear of sufficient power to insure that the boat ^ 
be turned out against the maximum list under which the lowering of the boat 
possible on the vessel in question. 

Section D of article 46 of the regulations, page 63, states: 

The provisions of articles 42 and 49 of the convention, respecting the launching 
boats, shall not be applicable to existing vessels. 

So that vessels that are built prior to the 1st of January this coi 
ing year, all ships built or building may go to sea and continue to g< 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 53 

ith. boats that are not strong enough to be lowered with their full 
lement of people and equipment, in case it shaU become neces- 
bo lower them in that way. On that question there is no improve- 
. at all. It is a lowering of the standard and a protection to the 
T in a sTiit for damages. 

ide from that, the boats and rafts that are on board of vessels 
ma^ continue on board of those vessok until 1920, article. 46, 
ilations, page 62, although they are plainly and distinctly below 
tandard set by the convention. They may continue thus for five 

3. 

)w with reference to certified hfe boatmen: It takes 7 to 11 men 
andle a lifeboat. There are no four men Uving at sea to-day, 
nywhere else, that can undertake to handle a Ufeboat in a gaie 
get it away from the ship's side; no four men or three men. It 
not be done. The boat is 28 to 30 feet long; it weighs from 5 to 
Qs total. It has got 50 to 75 persons aboard of it. The boat 
^ot to be lowered; then it has got to be got away from the ship's 

and after it gets away, then the two men, one with a drag, and 
her with a steering oar can hold the boat, but getting it away 
I tbe ship's side needs more than two or three men, and that is 

all the persons on board should be properly trained, and should 
'd by men who have greater skill than themselves. 
tiis convention provides as a minimum three men in a boat, for a 
'j that carries 60 or less. It provides four in boats that carry from 

85. Of course beyond that 1 do not go, becauso thos:^ would be 
'rent kinds of boats, of which 1 have never soen a sample, and of 
3h I know nothing. The ordinary hfeboat, as we know it, can not 
landled in this way. And that is the crew. 

/ho are these men? They may come from the fireroom; they 
T come from the coal bunkers; they may come from the cabin, or 
T come from the deck. They naay have a certif.cate issued by the 
iter under the rules laid down. The Government can delegate the 
ance of these certificates to anybody. Mr. Wierdsma, of the 
:ch delegation, asked the question, Could it be done by the master 
he vessel ? And the answer was. Yes. That is all there is to that, 
it reduces the s^^andard of our law as laid down in the decisions of 
courts, which provide that a vessel shall have no right to limita- 
i of liability unless she has on board a crew that is at all times 
? to do the work and to understand the orders. Not only may 
3e men come from these places, but they may be men who do not 
lerstand the orders of the officers. Their orders may have to be 
asmitted to them through interpreters. Now, then, you have got 
> interpreters on the deck of the vessel; two men to give orders 
n the officer to the lifeboat men.* In other words, you can only 
er two boats at a time. Suppose one of the interpreters on the 
k at the time is the interpreter in the fireroom; he may know 
le thing about it, or he may not; he may be able to translate the 
er of the officer properly, or he may not, because he is there to 
islate orders that deal with the fireroom and the engine room, 
i these are the men upon whom we are to depend to save lives 
?ase there is another Titanic or another VoUurno accident — and 
y are sure to come — these men may be tied up in the fireroom 

1 can not leave there, because you can not leave the fireroom of a 
3el until the very last moment. 



1_ 






54 SAI'ETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

The convention has provided the duties of the cooks and stew 
in case of disaster. Article 50, regulations, pages 64 and 65, 
that it shall be to warn, guide, and assemble the passengers and to 
them to their proper places for safely. There are not so many of t' 
but it will take all of them to do that, so that who is going to pre] 
the boats so that they may be lowered ? Under this convention 
may be nobody ,on deck except the watchman or the lookout uj^p _ 
and the quartermasters; there may be nobody outside of them 
the officers themselves, who are qualified as lifeboat men. So 
this condition that is created here is lower than that which is 
actual operation in ninety-nine out of a hundred cases of vessels 
sail the sea to-day. 

Senator Williams. What did this convention provide as to 
nimiber of able-bodied seamen to go with each lif eooat ? 

Mr. FuBUSETH. None at all. 

Senator Hitchcock. They are called ** boatmen," are they ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. They are called boatmen. 

Senator Shively. " Boat hands ? " 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Boat hands. 

Senator Williams. I should like to have a definition of "Ik . 
hand.'' 

Mr. FuRUSETH. I never knew a seaman who knew. 

Senator Hitchcock. Of course vou do not claim a man necess 
should be an able seaman as to tne ability in olden times to h 
sails and do all that work in order to be a good lifeboat manag^*^"^ 
or operator ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. I claim this. Senator, that the difference betwi 
the work done by seamen to-day on big steamers and the work d 
by seamen on a sailing vessel is a diflFerence in decree, not in ' 
that the work done by the men on deck of a vessel is such work __ 
man must go at and do in order to become an efficient boatmv^^ 
that is, to become efficient in lowering away a boat and getting it aiw>^ 
from the ship's side. I^^i 

When it comes to dealing with a boat after she is in the oceaiL ot*^^ 
then a fisherman, without any other training than that of a nshj|^'j 
man, would be a better man, but to lower the boat and get it a 
from the vessel takes men who are»experienced on the vessel. TL 
is not anv work that the fireman does or that the steward does wh 
fits him for that work. ^'fy 

Senator Hitchcock. Do you claim that they should maintain 
body of men doing nothing except to wait for accidents ? J^toi 

Mr. FuRUSETH. No; I do not claim that at all. I claim 
That on a vessel like the Lusitay^ia they could have two men for ev 
lifeboat. She has got 43 boats; she will have to have 43 boaj 
She now has a deck crew of 66, a total crew of 822, and the 66 inclu ' 
the officers, so that 43 boats would mean 86 men, officers and seam< 
All the additional men that the Lusitania would have to put on wo 
be 20 men, and she would not have to put all of them on, because 
could use men who are sufficiently skilled — that is, real seamen - 
some positions that are now filled by men who are not seamen. 

Senator Hitchcock. She would have to employ 23 additional m* 

Mr. FuRUSETH. No; 20 additional men. 

(Thereupon, at 12.10 o'clock p. m. April 1, 1914, the commit 
iidjourned until 10.30 o'clock a. m. Thursday, April 2, 1914.) 



SAFBTY OF LIFE AT SEA. 56 

TKUB8DAY, APBIL 2, 1914. 

committeb on fobeion relations, 

United States Senate, 

Wcbshington, D. C, 

rhe committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m. 

Present: Senators Shiyely (acting chairman), Hitchcock, O'Qor- 

in, WUfiams, Swanson, Fomerene, Saulsbury, Lodge, Smith of 

chigan. Root, McCumber, Sutherland, and Burton. 

Th.e AcrnNG CHAmicAN. The committee will come to order. Mr/ 

iruseth will continue his statement. 

STATBMEVT OF MB. AHDSEW FUBTTSETH— Continued. 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Mr. Chairman, on yesterday the Senator from 
sbraska asked about the number of men on these boats. I have 
ire a statement taken from the British records which shows the 
imber of deck crew, the number of the total crew, and the number 
passengers, and I have myself added the number of boats that 
)uld be required in order to give boats for all and two able seamen 
men of higher rating for every boat. 
Senator McCumber. That is, on some particular ship ? 
Mr. B*URUSETH. On the Lusitania, the Campania, the Laconia, the 
^auretaniaf the Olympicj the Baltic, the Oceanic, the LaurentiCf the 
idric, the Empress of Britain, the Lalce Michigan, the Merian, 
e ^enias, the Vuke of Albany, the Princess Alberta, and the Cambria. 
Senator McCumber. They are all boats of the same tonnage ? 
Mr. FuRUSETH. No; they are a good deal different in tonnage. 
Senator Lodge. That includes some of the very largest boats in the 
iter ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Yes. As a matter of fact, from what I can find 
\eill not be necessary to increase the number of the deck depart- 
ent in order to give two able seamen or men of higher rating for 
e boats necessary to carry the people, except perhaps 150 vessels 
the whole world; that is, the largest carriers. 
Senator Hitchcock. Is that your recommendation, or is that the 
1 FoUette biU ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. That is the La Follette bill. There are two men 
r every boat — two able seamen or men of higher rating for every 
>at. 

Senator Burton. Do you mean by the deck department, able 
amen? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. I mean by the deck department everybody from 
le first officer to the last of the seamen. 

Senator Burton. That is, able seamen, those who have served 
iree years? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. I will read the whole matter. As an instance, I 
ill give the Lusitania, The number of officers is 8 ; the number of 
jatswains, who necessarily are able seamen, 2; master-at-arms, 2; 
irpenters, who are usually able seamen, 2; able seamen as such, 38; 
tamen in the general sense, which might mean deck hands, 10; 
•dinary seamen, 11; boys, 1. The total is named at 66, but count- 
Lg them together it means 75. 



^fi SAFETY OF LIFE AT S^A. 

The Mauretania is of the same tonnage, the same carrying capacih|| 
as her sister vessel, and counting together her men it is: Officers, 8^ 
boatswains, 8; magter-at-arms, 2; carpenters, 2; able seamen, as 
such, 39; seamen in the general sense, 9; ordinary seamen, 2; and 
boys, 1. * 

In these vessels, and they are a fair average, it would be necessary 
at the most to put on 20 more men. 
' I wish to caU your attention, Senators, to the fact that the mei* 
on board of those vessels— men in the deck department of thos^ 
yessels —work 12 hours a day —12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Their 
sleep is six and one-half hours in one day and eight and one-hal 
hours on the next. There is watch and watch. Their duties 
12 hours, and out of the other 12 hours comes the sleep, and the food, 
the cleanliness, and all the other things. So that the men can no 
possibly get more than six and one-half hours of sleep in one day and 
eight and one-half hours in another, divided in three divisions. 

With reference to that I want to call yoiir attention to one singUil 
^Atence from the decision of Judge D. J. Hough, of the United State9 
J)i3trict Court, Southern District of New York. In a decision lately- 
rende^red he says: ^'It is a toiatter of common knowledge that safetv 
in anything that requires human effort depends in the last analyst 
on the human being. A weary man is mfinitely more dangerous 
Umn a defective type or an obscure light, because he is unfit to dis- 
e^^ev the unfitness of the inanimate object." 

Senator Hitchcock. Does this convention make any stipulation 
as to the hours of working ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. No; not at all. 

Senator Hitchcock. Does the La Follette bill ? 

Mr. FuRXJSETH. Yes; watch and watch at sea, and nine hours ^in 
port. 

Senator Hitchcock. What does that mean ? 
.' Mr. FuRUSETH. That means four hours' duty and four hours' rest, 
the same division that is now at sea, but there shall Be actual watcb 
ftnd watch. That is to say, that the half of the crew shall be oa 
duty at one time, half of the deck crew and one- third of the fire- 
room crew shall be on duty at one time. There is no change in the 
La Follette bill in that from the custom, but the reason it is insertecj 
in the La Follette bill is this : That in our vessels, particularly in our 
coastwise vessels, there has been a disposition to depart from that, 
and to run with only three men on decK during the nighttime aijd tc> 
let the general body of the men sleep during the night and work all 
day. It is what we seamen call kalashee watches. 

Senator Hitchcock. Would not the coastwise vessels be gov- 
erned by our laws ? 
: Mr. FuRUSETH. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. They are not affected by this convention ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. They are not affected. 

Senator Sutherland. But they would be affected bv the La FoW 
lettebill? 

Mr. Furuseth. C'ertainly. 

I have also here the station bill of the Baltic, upon which I went 
across. I got that and put it into the House record, and will now 
put it in here if you care about having it. 

I also have the station bill of the Oarmaniaj showing that the men 
of the deck department are always distributed for the boats. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 



57 



Boats are figured at 70 persons in the largest vessels, at 65 persons in the smaller; 
A. B. or higher rating per boat, the increase would be 20 men on the Lusitania. 



Number and rating of deck hands of undermentioned ships. 

at the 
1913.] 



;ted from latest Inward Agreement deposited at the Registry General of Shipping and Seamen, 

Nov. 11, '"" 



Ship. 



Lusitania 

Campania 

Laoonia , 

MacDPetania , 

Olsrmpic , 

Baltic :... 

Oceanic 

Laurentic(W. S.) 

Cedri?(W. S.) 

Empross of Britain (C. P. R.) 

Lake Michigan » (C. P. R.) 

Merion (American Line) 

Aenias (A. Holt) (Ocean S. S. Co. 

X.D.H.ifeU.) 

DnkBof Albany (L. AY.) 

Princess Alberta (Langland) • , 

Cambria (L. N. W. R.) 



Official 
No. 



124082 
102086 
131412 
124083 
131346 
118101 
110596 
127959 
115354 
120940 
115252 
115257 

131305 
124693 
121288 



Number 
of offi- 
cers, 
except 
master. 



8 
7 
6 
8 
7 
6 
6 
6 
6 
5 
4 
5 

4 
2 
2 
3 



Boat- 
swains. 



3 
2 
2 
3 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
2 

2 
1 



73 



Master- 
at-arms. 



2 
2 
3 
2 
2 



<1 



Carpen- 
ters. 



2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2. 

2 

2 

2. 

1 

2 

2 
1 
1 
1 



Look- 
out. 



6 



Store- 
keeper. 



Ship. 



lAsitania 

Campania.. 

Laccmia 

Maoretania 

Olympic 

Bfitlo. 

Ooeanio 

Leorcntlc (W. S".) 

Cedric(W.S.) 

Bmpiess of Britain (C. P. R.;.... 

UkeMichigan* (C. P. R.) 

Herion ( Amerioan Line) 

AoUas (A. Holt) (Ocean S. S. Co. 

L.D.H.«&U.) 

Duk»ofAlbany(L. & Y.) 

PrtDoess Alberta (Langland) * 

Cambria (L. N. W. R.yr:. 



A. B's. 



38 
28 
30 
39 
32 
29 
24 
27 
29 
20 
15 
25 

16 

11 

10 4' 

8 



Lamp 
trim- 
mer. 



8 
1 



Seamen, 
deck 

hands. 

or sail- 
ors. 



10 
7 
3 
9 

88 

2 
12 
3 
3 
6 
1 
5 



O. S. 



11 
2 
2 
2 

92 

8 
9 
7 
8 
10 



8 



Boys 



1 



Total 
of deck 
hands. 



66 
51 
49 
66 
72 
51 
70 
47 
52 
53 
23 
47 

28 
16 
12 
17 



Certificate to 
carry- 



Total 
of crew. 



822 
420 
429 



972 
370 
373 



372 
110 



Total 

of pag- 

sengers. 



2,133 
1,202 
2,692 



2,501 
1,984 
1,561 



1,542 
270 



'Spay officers. 

'Qoartermaster's stores. 

' Quartermaster sergeants. 

'linstructor. 

/The Lake Michigan leaves England in that condition, then goes to Antwerp and takes on about 2,00t 

)r«ntioe8. 
' Aiuf quartermaster. 

* 2 window cleaners. 

* 2 buglers. 
"Cargoman. 

In these vessels the deck crew works 12 hours per day seven days a week. The 
[tdditional cost per month would be about $500, or $250 for each voyage. 



58 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SBA. 



Boat stations on steamer ** Baltic j*' Oct, SI, leaving New York. 

[These figures are taken from station bills and certificate of BaUk by myself.— Andrew Fubuse' 



Boat No. — 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 



Deck. 


Fire and 
engine. 


Galley 

and 

saloon. 


3 


6 


16 


2 


5 


16 


4 


7 


16 


4 


7 


17 


4 


8 


16 


4 


6 


17 


4 


6 


16 


3 


6 


17 


4 


6 


15 


3 


7 


17 


4 


6 


18 


4 


6 


11 


3 


6 


16 


3 


7 


16 


2 


7 


15 


3 


6 


16 



Tc 

jn( 

bo 



There were 32 boats on board, but only 16 of them were manned^ and as above 

The vessel had 1 master, 6 officers, 2 masters-at-arms, 2 boatswains, 1 BtarAei 
1 lamp trimmer, 2 forecastle stewards, 6 quartermasters, 6 lookout men, 2 sa 
deckmen, 2 divers, 1 carpenter, 1 joiner (all except the carpenter and the joi 
rating as able seamen, 14 able seamen, and 8 ordinary seamen, or bovs. 

Here the total number of |>e^80tis to be carried was 2,345. Her total number of 1: 
for all would be 34 if 70 personis per boat, and 36 if 65 persons per boat — the nui 
of persons per boat. 

Boat No, 1, — Chief petty officer, 1 quartermaster (A. B.), 1 able seaman, t 
engineer, 'assistant storekeeper, 2 firemen, 2 trimmers, 16 stewards. 

Boat No, 2. — One quartermaster (A. B.), 1 ordinary seaman, 1 engineer, 1 engin< 
storekeeper, 2 firemen, 1 trimmer, 15 stewards. 

Boat No, 3. — Capt. Ranson (A. B.), 1 storekeeper (A. B.), 1 mess-room ste^ 
(A. B.), 1 able seaman, 1 engineer, 1 greaser, 1 leading fireman, 2 firemen, 1 trim] 
1 firemen*8 mess-room steward, 16 stewards. 

Boat No. 4. — Chief officer (A. B.), lamp trimmer (A. B.), saloon-deck man (A. 
IB. S., surgeon, 1 engineer, 1 greaser, 3 firemen, 1 firemen's ste^^ud, 17 steward 

Boat No. 5.— First officer (A. B.), 1 lookout (A. B.), 1 A. B., 1 0. S., 1 engii 

1 greaser, 4 firemen, 2 trimmers, 16 stewards. 

Boat No, 6. — Second officer (A. B.), 1 lookout, 1A.B.,10.S.,1 engineer, 1 grej 

2 firemen, 2 trimmers, 17 stewards. 

Boat No. 7. — Carpenter, 1 lookout (A. B.), 1 A. B., 1 0. S., 1 electrician, 1 grei 
2 firemen, 2 trimmers, 16 stewards. 

Boat No, 8, — ^Boatswain (A. B.), 1 lookout (A. B.), 1 A. B., 1 electrician, 1 grej 
2. firemen, 2 trimmers, 17 stewards. 

Boat No: 9. — ^Boatswain's mate (A. B.), 2 A. B's., 1 O. S., 1 greaser, 2 firei 
2 trimmers, 15 stewards. 

Boat No. 10. — Chief mate (A. B.), 1 lookout (A. B.), 1 O. S., 1 engineer, 1 gres 
2 firemen, 1 trimmer, 17 stewards. 

Boat No. //.—Third officer (A. B.), 1 lookout (A. B.), 2 A. B's., 1 enginec 
greaser, 2 firemen, 2 trimmers, 18 stewards. 

Boat No. 12. — Fifth officer, 1 quartermaster (A. B.), 2 A. B's., 1 engineer, 1 grej 
2 firemen, 2 trimmers, 16 stewards. 

Boat No, 13, — Fourth officer (A. B.), 2 A. B's., 1 engineer, 1 greaser, 2 firei 
2 trimmers, 16 stewards. 

Boat No. 14. — One quartermaster (A. B.), 1 A. B., 1 0. S., 1 engineer, 1 grease 
electric-light man, 2 firemen, 2 trimmers, 16 stewards. 

Boat No, 15.— One quartermaster (A.B.), IA.B.,1 engineer, 2 greasers, 2 firei 
2 trimmers, 15 stewards. 

Boat No. 16. — Chief petty officer (A. B.), 1 quartermaster (A. B.), 1 A. B., 1 bo 
maker, 1 greaser, 2 firemen, 2 trimmers, 16 stewards. 



♦ SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 59 

^ The steamship " Carmanm " of the Cvnard Line. 

Taken firom her certificate and station bills by m3rself when a passenger on her arriving in New York on 

the 1st day of January, 1914.— Andrew Fvbuseth.] 

Her official number is 120001. 

Her tonnage, 19,524. 

Total passenger capacity, 1,950: First cabin, 418; second cabin, 206; steerage, 1,331. 

Total of crew, 480: Deck department, 258; engineer department, 153; firemen and 
coal passers, 138; enein^ers, 15. 

Deck crew, 53: Master, 1; deck officers, 6; quartermasters, 6; masters-at-arms, 2; 
boatswains, 2; carpenters, 2; able seamen, 32; boys, 2. 

On this particular trip she was 16 short of her full crew in the steward's department* 




master- 

ter; 

and fifth quartermaster; No. 15, joiner. 

Boats port aide. — Manned from deck department as follows: No. 2, chief officer and 
master-at-arms; No. 4, boatswain; No. 6, extra third officer; No. 8, No 2 quarter- 
master; No. 10, No. 4 quartermaster; No. 12, second officer; No. 14, sixth quarter- 
master; No. 16, carpenter. 

Boats under davits 16 in charge of officers or i)etty officers, as above. The rest of 
the deck crew wei*e provided with numbers corresponding with the numbers of the 
boats to which they were assigned No men assigned to any boat«^ except the boats 
actually under davits. Boats for all, at 65 persons to a boat, would require 38 boats, 
and that would require 74 men in the deck department; but the crew could easily 
be rearranged, so that 12 more men in the deck department would be all that would 
be needed. With 70 persons per boat, the nun^ber of boats would be 35, and the 
number of able seamen or men of higher rating required would be 70. 

The men in the deck department were at actual work,. not simply on duty, 12 hours 
out of 24 seven days a week. 

Dealing further with the question of the boats and rafts, there was 
a debate in the British House of Commons when the present English 
law was adopted, which is boats for all in the ocean trade. That 
debate is very illuminative of the comparative value of rafts and 
boats, and if there is no objection I should like to have it put in the 
record so that you may have an opportunity to look at it. 

The Acting Chairman. That may be inserted. 

(The record of the debate referred to is as follows:) 

f Hoose of Commons. Safety of life at sea. Board of trade rules. Debates in the House of Commons on 
the 7th of October, 1912. Speech of the president of the board of trade (Mr. Sydney Buxton). Ex> 
tracted from the official report.] 

[In this debate the question of rafts versus boats is dealt with, as is also the appli- 
cation of the law to foreign vessels coming within British jurisdiction.] 

Mr. Buxton. I have nothing to complain of in the tone of the debate which has 
taken place. To the criticisms directed by representative shipowners against the 
{Mffticular rules dealing with boats and as to other important matters I propose to 
give my most respectful attention. The noble lord referred just now to one or two 
iparticular questions about which I may say a word or two before I deal with the 
question of boats. One advantage that has been gained by the publicity of the whole 
matter is that public attention has not been confined to the one question of the boats, 
but we have had the opportunity of overhauling and considering all the various 
questions in connection with life saving at sea. One or two speakers referred to the 
question of drilling and organizing at sea. I think everbody will agree with the 
report of the advisory committee and the report of Lord Mersey in reference to that 
matter, that there is no good having your boats and men unless you have the or^m- 
ization to see that they are properly put into the water and that the manning is effec- 
tive for the purpose. They both recommend that very considerable steps should be 
taken in regard to the question of organization and drill. The board of trade at the 
present moment have gone into the matter carefully . They have no statutory powers 
with regard to organization and drill, suggested by the court, but I hope the shipowners 
as a whole and the seamen will recognize the importance of the matter. The ques- 
tion involves, as some members have pointed out, very delLe«iitft o^m^^^vota, ^w'ci^ ^a 
tiiat of discipline and other matters; and I think it may \)e XL^e^sBM:^ \ft \v»n^ 'Ocw^ 



60 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

authority of some inquiry behind the board of trade for dealing with a question w 
important as that. 

The other question in connection with manning was raised by the honorable am} I 
learned member for the exchange, Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott). Qei 
raised the point as to the training of boys and the general question of British crewi 
as against foreigners in our merchant service. As regards the latter point, I am glad 
to say that the act of 1906 has been very effective in two respects — effective in attract- 
ing a larger number of Britishers to the mercantile marine, and largely also in difr 
couraging foreigners from joining. The figures are remarkable for the last three or 
four years. We find that the proportion of British seamen has very largely increased 
and that of foreign seamen has largely diminished in the mercantile marine. The 
honorable and learned member suggests — and I know he takes a personal interefll 
in the matter — the special training of boys. That is a question which up to now 
has been somewhat difl&cult of solution, because the Admiralty at one time had a 
scheme of their own, which, unfortunately, was not successful. At the present 
moment they have no particular reason for assisting the training of boys, now that 
they have introduced their naval reserve. The result is that it is really more difficuH 
to justify expenditure in that direction without the ground you formerly had of 
national safety. We are looking into the matter and endeavoring to deal with it 
from a different point of view. The board of education and the board of trade and 
the treasury are engaged in seeing what they can do in regard to this matter. 

The honorable member for Hexham (Mr. R. D. Holt) raised the question of wireless 
telegraphy. I think the house agrees generally that the time has come when wirelesB 
telegraphy should be made compulsory on a certain class of passenger ships and pos* 
fiibly on a certain class of cargo ships. I have had a bill prepared for some time, 
but I have postponed its introduction in view of the international negotiations which 
are taking place. I should not propose to postpone it too long if those discussiona 
are unduly prolonged. Therefore 1 will not trouble the house with details with 
regard te it. But there is one point to which my honorable friend referred, and to 
which I would like at once to give an answer. He said that it would not be just to 
enforce compulsory wireless telegraphy on the shipowners in this country when at 
present the wireless provided for shipping purposes is almost in the nature of a 
monopoly and almost in the hands of one company, and that under those circumstances 
if shipowners were te be compelled by law te install wireless telegraphy he suggested 
that some means ought to be found te protect them from excessive charges for such 
installation. I am glad to say that when I introduce the bill I hope I may be aBIfi 
to be in a position to make an announcement to reassure the shipowners on this point. 

With regard to the general propositions which have been discussed this aftemooD^ 
namely, the statutory rules dealing with boat accommodation and life-8a\'ing appli- 
ances, the noble lord opposite (Lord C. Beresford) referred to the floatability of the 
ship, bulkheads, and watertight compartments, and so on, as being the matters of 
really primary importance in this question. I am sure every n ere ber of the house 
agrees to the proposition which he laid down. Last May I appointed the bulkheads 
committee, which, I may say parenthetically, I was about to appoint before the loss 
of the Titanic. The noble lord said that that committee met with general approval, 
and that its decision would command general confidence. 1 can not anticipate what 
that committee may say with regard to bulkheads and water-tight compartn-ents,, 
but when they report it will be a question of how far it will be necessary for the board 
of trade to take further powers to deal with the (question, and how far the natural 
development of the ship itself, with which we desire to interfere as little as possible, 
and the duty of the board of trade to the public can be combined. Personally, I do 
not think there will be much difficulty in regard to that matter. The noble lord asked 
why we introduced these rules before that committee had reported. These rules 
deal with no question that is before the bulkheads committee. That committee has 
to deal solely with the question of water-tight compartments, and so on, and is really 
not affected by these statutory rules. 

I have been cons^ratulated upon the precedent which I have set in this matter by 
laying before Parliament, in the form of a white paper, the draft rules which it is 
proposed, subject to criticism and possible alteration, to lay before Parliament in the 
statu^tory way. The honorable member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) said that 
I wanted to find a little light and leading before laying my propositions before the 
house. Surely in a matter of this sort that is a sensible course to take. He said that 
I wanted to find out the weak spots. So I do; but I want to find out also the strong 
points, and I have learned a great deal from the speeches to which we have listened 
this afternoon, although I may not agree with all that has been said. I make it per- 
fectly clear in the paper that the rules were draft rules, published for the express pur- 
pose of eliciting the views and criticisms of the various parties concerned, and that the 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 61 

Ionise is not committed to the rules by the discussion of to-day. It is possible that 
►^fore the rules are actually put forward they majr be amended. 

I said just now that the most important element in this matter was the floatability 
^i the ship, but I think it is true that you can not depend absolutely on that float- 
ability. Circumstances may arise when those on board may have to depend on 
^oats. One member said that without due consideration or sufficient reason we 
irere rushing into new rules and regulations. The honorable member for Liverpool 

Suoted figures showing how very safe it was to travel by sea. We all rejoice that that 
liould be so. The honorable member pointed out that in the last 20 years only 
L18 passengers and crew had lost their lives in crossing the Atlantic. That is a very 
3iie record. But unfortunately we can not now use that argument at all, because 
i;n one year the number has gone up from 118 for 20 years to 1,500 in 1, and we must 
take warning by such a calamity. We must see where our weak spots are, and, as 
Ear as possible, without panic and without sentiment, do what we can to meet the 
difficulty. I do not pin my faith too much to boats, but there are certain contin- 
gencies m which the provision of life-saving appliances for all will be of incalculable 
service. It is clear that in future, in regard to ships in the foreign ocean-going trade, 
the shipowners must provide sufficient and efficient life-saving apparatus for all on 
board. I need hardly have dwelt on that point, had it not been for the speech of 
Diy honorable friend the member for Hexham (Mr. Holt). The court recommended 
it; the twivisory committee, largely representative of the shipping interests, also 
pecommended it; and all the resolutions of the various shipping industries in the 
:x)untry hav^ accepted the principle that there must be efficient life-saving appa- 
»tus for all on board. Therefore, although my nonorable friend holds his view 
rery stroi^ly, he is almost alone in this house in so doing. 

In this matter generally I think there is a good deal oi exaggeration as to the addi- 
ional amount of boats tnat will have to be provided in ihe mercantile marine. At 
he present moment rather over 80 per cent of the foreign-going passenger ships in 
lie mercantile marine have sufficient boats, not only on board, but under davits, 
)r all persons on their ships. Therefore, four out of every five are already provided 
dth boats for all, and it can not be such a very serious matter to ask the other 16 per 
ent or 20 per cent to come up to the same standard. I think we are entitled to say 
lat if they wish people to travel by their lines they ought, like their competitors, 
> provide sufficient life-saving accommodations for them. 

In these rules I have laid it down that there sliall be boats for all on ocean-going 
^p8. They are to be lifeboats of an improved type, which will not buckle when 
fciey are lowered; they are to be fully equipped, and kept equipped; they are to be 
laced on the ships where they can be expeditiously and effectively launched, and 
B far as possible actually attached to davits, the number of davits depending on the 
3ngth of the ship. The honorable member from Dulwich (Mr. Fred Hall) asked 
whether the davits should be amidship or whether other places could be conveniently 
Dund. In this matter I have taken the view of the advisory committee. There are 
ertain parts of the ship in which you can not advantageously have your davits, and 
here are certain parts from which you can not safely launch your boats. About two- 
hirds of the ship is taken as being where davits can reasonably be placed. But in 
his matter we shall have the advantage of the report of the davits committee, which 
I hope will be issued before very long. 

The rules have been criticized by the shipowners this afternoon. I have no objec- 
don whatever to the criticisms which have been made. I welcome them; I want to 
lee exactly what is the difference between the rules as proposed and the view taken 
3y the shipowners. The essential principles of the proposed rules are that there 
aOiould be provided life-saving accommodation sufficient in amount, efficient in 
c|uahty, suitable in character, and readily available when required. If we are agreed 
in regard to these main principles — and I take it from his speech that the honorable 
member opposite (Mr. Leslie Scott) agrees with them — the question between us is 
one of detail, namely, of how best to carry out those principles. If there are practical 
difficulties, either generally or in regard to any individual ship, I can assure the hon- 
orable member that we desire to meet those difficulties as far as we can. I do not 
think there is any difference of opinion between us as regards the main desire we have 
at heart. I shall therefore welcome any representations on matters of detail, and I do 
not propose formally to laj the rules before the house for acceptance until I have had 
an opportunity of receiving and carefully considering representations which any of 
those interested may desire to place before me. 

I have been taken to task for not having accepted in full the report of the advisory 
committee. I am very much indebted indeed, as president of the board of trade, 
not only for the trouble, energy, and time which that committee have expended on 
their work for many years past, but also for the very va\ua\>\e xepoiX. ^\^0b. ^«^ Vkn^ 



62 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

presented to me. But I do not think that thev themselves would say that 
report should necessarily be regarded as inspired, or that I should necessarily 
absolutely what they recommended. As a matter of fact, I accepted a very large 
portion of their recommendations; but in certain particulars I found it necc 
eitiier to go beyond them or to proceed somewhat differently. After I received 
report I £id tJie advantage of the recommendations of Lord Mersey's report. Nal 
idly, also, I and my advisers have gone into all the questions involved; and it am 
be held to be any reflection on the advisory committee if, in a matter of this aoi 
after carefully considering all the recommendations which they made, I have come 
a different conclusion in regard to certain matters. 

I have listened with great interest and care to the speech of the honorable men* 
ber opposite (Mr. Leslie Scott), but I have not been able to see what is the mat< 
and vital difference which he alleges between the report of the advisory commit 
and the rules which I am presenting to the house. I myself and my department 
strongly as anyone in this nouse, and as strongly as the advisory committee, adh( 
to the general principle that the stability and the seaworthy qualities of the vessel 
itself must be regarded as of primary importance, and that any departure from i 
would be altogether in the wrong direction. I say that so far as I understand 
question, I do not think that the rules that I am laying before the house in any way 
makes it more difficult to construct a vessel with a maximum of stability and sea* 
worthy qualities, while at the same time providing for full and effective life-saving 
apparatus. The allegation of the honorable member for Liverpool is that the rules 
lay a hard and fast, cast-iron system upon the mercantile marine. This I entirely 
deny. 

I should Like to examine the question samewhat more fully, after listening to the 
•peech of the honorable gentleman, the member for Liverpool, to see exactly what 
are the grievances which he alleges and what are the objections he has to the rules, 
and to see in what way they may be met, if sound. 

We are all agreed, I think, that effective means of escape from the sinking ship mu^t 
be provided for all on board. We are all agreed also that the life-saving apparatus 
should be suitable in character, efficient in quality, and promptly available m emer- 
gency. If it is to be efficient in quality and suitable in character, then comes the 
question: What other alternatives can you have to the proposals to the rules? The 
proposals of the rules are that you should have lifeboats. The proposals of the hon- - 
orable member for Liverpool are that you shall allow other alternatives. What alter- ; 
natives are there really at the present moment to efficient lifeboats? There is the - 
alternative of the decked lifeboat — ^what is known as the Engelhard t type. I mention " 
the Engelhard t type because it is well known, though there may be other boats of the 
same character and quality. They are allowed under the rules. That type, I think, - 
is the most effective form of a raft that you can have, combining the advantages of 
the raft with the advantages of the lifeboat. That is allowed as an alternative life- 
boat. The honorable gentleman, the member for Liverpool, more than once referred 
to this tjrpe, and objected to the 50 per cent limit placed upon the number of these 
decked lifeboats which might be allowed in proportion to the other lifeboats. I have 
considered that matter. In principle I have no objection whatever to a larger pro- 

?ortion under certain conditions of these decked lifeboats to the ordinary lifeboats, 
believe that will very largely meet the difficulty which the honorable member put 
before the house. 

The only alternative lifeboat to the decked lifeboat is either the open raft or 
the collapsible boat. The noble lord opposite referred to the open raft, if I re- 
member rightly, in a former speech, and ne very strongly condemned it for ocean- 
going ships, for reasons which ne gave and has just repeated. These were that the 
raft 18 a dangerous animal unless it is tied up and unless it is tied very tight. That 
being so, it is not much of an alternative. It is open, too, to obvious objection that 
it is subject to complete exposure, that little equipment can be carried with it, that 
it is quite unmanageable in a seaway, and that it nas no means of progression. The 
honorable gentleman, the member for Dulwich, I think, said that Lord Merse)r had 
recommended in his report "rafts" instead of lifeboats. I do not think that is so, 
because I think Lord Mersey was referring, in using the word "raft," to a decked 
lifeboat of the Engelhardt type, which throughout his report he describes as a raft. 
At all events, at the present time I do not believe that there is any open raft which, 
in any sense of the term, can be held to be as suitable as a life-saving appliance as \ 
either the Engelhardt or the lifeboat. I have referred the question to the davite 
committee, and no doubt in the course of time we shall receive from them a definite < 
report in regard to this particular question. 

If we put aside the open raft as against the decked lifeboat the only other alternative 
is what 18 called the collapsible boat. K co\\apa\b\^ bo«A, ^a l\%h.t, but it has, I think, ■ 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 63 

the point of view of ocean gjoing, immenie drawbacks. It Ib fragile on deck and 
Le afloat. It deteriorates with even the greatest care, and at the ver^ moment 
a it may be required it may be found to be quite unseaworthy . Collapsible boats 
have tne inmiense disad-vmiitage that at a moment of pamc — it may be in the 
: or in. a storm — ^they have to \^ put together, and the boat may have to be put 
ther by somebody who has possibly never handled one before. They have also 
disadvanta^ tibat they can not be lowered wi^ their complement on board. I 
lot b^iuve any honorable member of this house, if he had the option between a 
kedliief>oat and an ordinary lifeboat and a collapsible boat, would for one moment 
ik tfiat the collapsible boat was in any sense of tne tenn in the same category from 
fe-saving point of view. If that be so — and I am trying to reduce the matter as 
ween the honorable gentleman, the member from Liverpool, and m3r8elf to the 
dlest dimensions — ^then the type of open raft and the collapsible boat must be 
Bd out. We thus come back to the lifeboat and the decked lifeboat as the only 
lly effective life-saving apparatus. 

Ve are agreed also that the boat ought to be promptly available in an emergency. 
Jiis be so, the best thing, then, is that they should be under davits, and, of course, 
y would all be that in tiie case of most of the ships. The honorable gentleman for 
rerpool rather took me to task in this matter for not having carried out the proposals 
he advisory committee by basing, in the future as in the past, the number of davits 
the tonnage of the boat. Hie scale of the committee is a complicated one. It is 
tonnage up to a certain point, Uien there is a distinction between boats under 
nits and not under davits, and finally the principle is adopted of allowing length 
additional davits. 

'. have substituted for the old tonnage basis, which has no real relation to the davit 
ice, the length of the vessel as an index of the availa>>le davit space. My scale is 
iple and progressive, and not a complicated scale like that of the advisory commit- 
!. But in this matter there is really no vital difference, because the number of 
ita under davits is not very much greater under one scheme than another. 
Vpparently , the honorable member for Liverpool has his greatest difficulty in regard 
tne question of stowage. I am in some difficulty, seeing that he is not now present, 
cause I should have liked to have had his view with regard to the observations I am 
iking. I have ruled out the question of open rafts and the question of davits as not 
)wing very great difference between us. But he said the question was one of what 
liink he called top-hamper. He said if there were to be a great many more life- 
ats, and if shipowners were not to be allowed to stow them where they liked, diffi- 
Ity would arise in regard to the stability of the vessel. I do not think that the 
norable member has read the rules very carefully. If he had read the rules care- 
iy he would have seen that instead of there being a hard and fast line drawn with 
5^d to this matter there is, imder rule "D," very considerable latitude and elas- 
ity given in every case as between the shipowner and the board of trade. I can 
wre him that, so far as we are concerned, we realize quite as much as he does the 
Eculty which may occur in regard to certain ships in respect to the stowage. £ach 
[iividual case of difficulty of stowing the lifeboats as required will undoubtedly be 
ken on its merits, with the fullest possible intention of doing no damage to the ship 
to the mercantile marine. 

VVhat we have laid down is that the boats should be placed on the ship so that they 
J most readiljr and promptly available. I think everybody will agree that if you 
J to have efficient boats you want to be able to get hold of them and launch them at 
; earliest possible moment. We have, as I have said, a committee sitting which 
11 assist very materially, I hope, in facilitating the launching of these boats. I hope 
will supersede the old form of davit, which to a layman's mind seems to be about 
awkward a bit of machinery of which you can very well conceive. I hope especially 
it they wi 1 be able to devise some means of more safely launching the boats from 
) enormous heights to which the big liners now go. 

rhe honorable gentleman the member for Liverpool said that 1 had the case 
ore me of the AquUania, and that these showed a great difference between my 
posals and those of the advisory committee. The ship in question is being built 
the Cunard Line, and I have had from the chairman of the committee the plans, 
h a view of showing the difference between the recommendations of the advisory 
imittee and the recommendations contained in these draft rules. I have very 
sfully gone into them, and I need hardly say I shall be glad to go into the question 
timilar cases. Without wearying the house with detail which honorable members 
:ht find it difficult to follow, seeing it is a technical matter, it comes to this: That 
company are not proposing to have any collapsible boats, and rafts for only 80. 
jy are proposing to have — honorable members must remember there will be some- 
ig like 4,500 persons on board — entirely lifeboats, motor boats, and deck life- 



64 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

boats. The real difference, I think, between the two, between the rules anc 
recommendationB of the advisory committee, is that if I can let the firm have 
12 or 14 more decked boats in lieu of a similar number of lifeboats, there will I 
difficulty of stowage on that ship and no real difference between the effect oi 
rules and the suggestions of the advisory committee. I am perfectly prepared, 
have said in reference to this question of lifeboats, so far as I can, to meet the 
culty. I do not think I shall have much difficulty in consultation with Mr. E 
in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion in regard to this particular ship. If h< 
able members who have spoken had been able to give me the particulars of ships ^^ 
stability they say will be upset, I should then have been in the position to est! 
how far what they said was a fact, and possibly to meet the matter, as I hope to 
the difficulty in tne case of the particular ship to which I refer. 

Lord C. Beresford. What about shallow drafts? 

Mr. Buxton. What I said was that I should like to have the particulars o: 
ships mentioned — shallow or otherwise — to see the actual difference between 
rules and the draft rules which I have suggested and the recommendations o 
advisory committee. I think it will be found that there is really a very unn 
sary fear in the minds of some shipowners in regard to this matter. I think I shs 
able to show, as I have shown, that in these cases, there is no great difference bet 
us, and the difference is one which can be bridged. I should like to point out t 
house this— and I am sorry it is rather a technical question, but it very largely a 
the position which I am taking up — namely, that either those who have been 
cizing the rules have not sufficiently studied them, or they are not really aware 
the advisory committee recommended, because in these matters I do not think 
is so much difference between us as some honorable members seem to think. 

Let me examine it by the light of figures. The contention of the honorable i 
ber for Liverpool is this: That the large number of these lifeboats would be pu 
considerable additional weight upon the deck of the ship, with the result that tne 
would largely lose its stabilitv. I have made a calculation of the actual weigh 
10 persons of open lifeboats, decked lifeboats, Berthon boats, and open rafts to 
follows: Open lifeboats 'work out at 5.8 hundredweight, decked lifeboats at 
Berthon boats at 3.6, open rafts at 6.5 j)er cent hundredweight 

Lord C. Beresford. That is not quite the point as to the calculation of I 
it was a calculation of the davits — of the weights of the davits, and that wou] 
enormously increased. 

Mr. Buxton. Perhaps the noble lord will allow me to go on. I shall deal wit 
point. What is suggested to me this afternoon is that the rules are estimating f( 
many boats under davits, and that they are asking that there should be lifeboa 
all, and that there ought to be the alternatives of collapsible boats and open ra 
the lifeboats. I am not in favor of the alternative. But assuming these thin§ 
adopted as life-saving apparatus, I am pointing out that there is no great diffei 
as between the niles and what is recommended by the advisory committee in r 
to the additional weight which would be involved upon any particular ship, 
honorable member for Liverpool assumed, and every shipowner in the house, 
everyone who spoke for the shipowners, with th6 exception of my honorable fr 
the member for Hexham, assumed and argued that we ought to adopt absoluteb 
entirely the proposals of the advisory committee. I am, therefore, entitled to* 
pare the proposals of the advisory committee with those of the draft rules when 
attacked and told that the draft rules are dangerous, while those of the ad\ 
committee are safe. This is rather a parenthesis in reply to the noble lord. 

I think I have just shown that the life raft weighs rather more than the open 
or the decked lifeboat, and the collapsible boat weighs rather less per 10 persoi 

I now take the Olympic, which is, perhaps, the best type of sliip for the pur 
of comparison. These things are rather difficult to explain, and I am tr;-ing to 
them clear. This vessel requires 24 sets of davits, according to the draft rules 
22 sets according to the advisory committee. The whole number of certified pe 
is 3,600, and for these there are, as I say, 24 sets of davits, according to the draft i 
and 22 according to the advisory committee. Therefore both recommend 22 life 
under davits, providing accommodation for 1,320 persons. The balance is 2,28( 
sons. By the draft rules these 2,280 persons must be provided with lifeboats, 
weight of the lifeboat for the saving of 2,280 persons will be 71 tons, and the two 
sets of davits would be 4 tons, making a total weight of 75 tons; that is, so far 2 
board of trade rules are concerned. Then as regards the advisory committee 'f 

Sosal, I assume that none of the other boats except those under davits will be ord 
feboats — a large assumption. I also assume that about half the additional pro^ 
will be of the decked lifeboat type — ^in the case of the Aquitania all were to be d< 
lifeboats. I am, however, only assuming half, and that the other half is made 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 65 

psiblee and rafts. The total weight of the decked boats and tlie rafts and the 
psiblee together is 63 tons. So that the total difference in weight on ah enormous 
like the Olympi4: between the recommendations of the advisory committee and 
draft rules is only 12 tons. I would also point out what that means as regards 
saving. Twelve tons is not a very serious or material thing in a ship of that size. 
by this additional 12 tons 1^140 persons will, if a calamity comes, be aole to depend 
their lives upon lifeboats instead of upon rafts or collapsible boats. Therefore, 
ill^ think there is something to be said for my rules as against those of the advisory 
inuttee. 

ir F. FiiANNERY. That applies to large ships like the Olympic^ but what of the 
Her, shallower-draft vessels? 

[r. Buxton. There is plenty of elasticity in the rules. I understand the honorable 
nber for Liverpool attacks our system because of alleged want of elasticity. Every 
5 will be considered upon its merits as regards 8tx)wage. Hut upon the particular 
> on which I have argued the matter, I am inclined to think it will l)e found that 
additional weight is so very small that with a little give and take — and I am pre- 
ed to give if I am allowed to take — there will be no difficulty in effecting a fair 
ingement in r^;ard to every ship. 

have gone at some length into that matter in order to show that the difficulty antic- 
ted from these rules is nothing like so great as some people seem to think. I do 
suppose anyone who advocat^ the other proposals would propose or suggest that 
rafts or collapsible boats should be anywhere but on deck. If on deck their 
^ht will be very nearly as great as that of the lifeboat. If they are not on deck, 
; are put away into the holds of the vessel, thej^ will l)e perfectly useless when the 
iger arrives. I have explained the position with regard to the davits. If either 
ore the report of the boats and davits committee, or afterwards, any system for the 
nchingof these boats which is as good as the existing system is submitted, it will 
taken into consideration by the board of trade. Further, if any life-saving appa- 
us can be shown to be equally suitable with the existing lifeboats or decked boats 
jy will be considered by the board of trade in connection with the life-saving appa- 
us that should be put upon any particular ship. We have been told that these pro- 
sals would reduce the mventive power of those who apply their minds to these 
ktters. We believe, on the contrary, that both as regards tne question of davits and 
B-savin^ appliances, the proposal I am making will have a great effect and will be 
incentive to improvement m this respect. 

There was one otner point raised to which I would refer, namely, that of cargo boats. s 
was suggested, in regard to cargo boats, that to strengthen the existing davits was 
t necessary, so that the boats should be able to carry the full complement before 
dng lowered into the water. If it is shown to me that that is really a hardship I 
ill consider the matter, and see how far it could be modified; but the rule is not 
tended to apply to existing davits in cargo ships; it is not retrospective. 
Now, one word with regard to the question of home-trade vessels, which was raised 
r the honorable member for Glasgow. I have had only one representation from 
e home trade on this matter. They have asked to see me and to discuss it, and 
Aall only be too glad to do so with them. The argument used by the honorable 
ember was that the loss of the Titanic had no bearing on the home trade, and that 
lerefore one ought to go out of one's way to deal with them owing to that matter. 
do not think that is a good argument. I think the fact that this disaster occurred 
Is enabled us to look round on all the various life-saving appliances in use in every 
trt of the mercantile marine. I admit the home trade raises totally different prob- 
ttns, and it has been dealt with in a totally different way. A fair and consistent 
^eral answer to the home-trade objection is this, that at the present moment, and 
ince the loss of the TitaniCy as soon as it was obvious that this matter should be dealt 
tith a considerable number of shipowners themselves — that is, cross-channel and 
pulsion owners — voluntarily, and largely increased their life-saving appliances, 
le particular firm which before that had only in life-saving apparatus, apart from 
' belts, provision to the extent of 5.9 per cent of the number of persons on board, 
now increased this amount to 50 per cent in one ship and 55 per cent in another, 
' all I am asking for is 60 per cent in these particular ships, so that I do not think 
wi be said that my proposals are a hardship upon these people. If one looks at the 
of these excursion and cross-channel steamers one sees in some cases 67, 80, and 
per cent of hfe-saving appliances, whereas other ships carrying on the same trade 
ve only 4, 5, 6, or 7 per cent. I think the complete answer to these complaints is 
It if other shipowners can do it and are doing it voluntarily, it is no hardship that 
" rest should he required to bring their ships up to the standard that others are 
themselves. The hardship is really not great, because the cross-channel steamer 
We in the bulk of cases to change their existing seats into buoyant seats. There 

38444—14 5 



66 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

is no great weight and no particular question of stability involved. I do not be 
when they come to discuss the matter that they can show that I am treating i 
harshly. If they can, I shall be glad to meet them as far as I possibly can. 

Some honorable members have asked that the enforcement of these rules sL 
be postponed until the reports have been received from the two committees w 
are still sitting on davits and bulkheads, respectively^, and until some internal 
agreement has been reached with the principal maritime countries. I have ah 
pointed out that the report of the bulkneads committee can hardly affect the pr( 
rules. They may be affected however, in regard to the question of substitute 
davits and for liieboats. Honorable members will see that we have providec 
that contingencjr by the rules, which give ample powers to the board of trac 
modify the reauirements as to davits if some improved means of getting boats 
the water should be devised. As far as the second i>oint is concerned, I should 
be prepared to provide for it by recognizing the possibility of permitting other i 
of me-saving apparatus if they are equivalent or superior to those which we 
recognizing under the rules. 

The suggestion that I should agree to the rules standing over until after the 1 
national conference is one which it is not easy for me to adopt. The difficult! 
international arrangements are always great, and the honorable member for L 
pool loiows that as well as anybody in the house. It may be that the prelimi 
discussions which are taking place will be somewhat prolonged, because we ha-" 
deal with several nations, and they themselves are looking into the matter, and 
not possible for me to say how long they may take. It is quite impossible for d 
defer to an indefinite period these rules which I ^jn suggesting to the house, 
honorable member for Hexham said with great truth it would be very disadvi 
^ous to enforce these rules on British shipping and not enforce them on their foi 
rivals. With that I agree; but I would point out that it is not our intention to a 
these rules only to British ships. It is our intention to apply these revised 
equally to foreign ships as well as to British ships. 

Lord C. Beresford. That is your intention. 

Mr. Buxton. Yes; that is our intention, except in cases where it is formally r< 
nized that the rules of a particular country are equally effective. The noble 
opposite knows that at present there are in force arrangements by orders in coi 
in regard to life-saving rules in the case of a number of foreign, countries. Take 
many, for instance. She has certain rules, and we have certain rules. If we be 
that her rules are substantially equivalent to ours, or if she thinks ours are sub 
tially equivalent to hers, then she accepts our rules as the basis for our ship gob 
her ports, just as we, on the other hand, accept her rules for her ships coming \a 
ports. At the present time we have orders in council applying to a number of ( 
countries, and we have an agreement of this kind with tne United States of Ame 
The present revision raises the question how far these orders in council will 
amendment so that the enactment of the new rules will compel us automatical 
enter into a discussion with other coimtries with regard to life-saving; applia] 
If, in the course of these discussions and of any more general international neg 
tions, it is found desirable to agree to some modification of the rules now before 
house, they can be effected by amending the rules, and they will apply equal 
British ana to foreign ships. I hope that reply will be satisfactory to my honoi 
friend, the member for Hexham. 

Mr. Holt. I do not think the right honorable gentleman understands my p 
It is not the trouble with foreign competitors, but the difficulty the shipowner 
be put to if he has to comply with different regulations in different countries. 

Mr. Buxton! My answer to that is that we have at the present moment, by di 
negotiations, orders in council and agreements with foreign countries, regula 
which apply equally to foreign and to British ships. We shall have to negotiate 
vidually with those countries, and the international discussion will also assist i 
getting a uniformity of rules in regard to the whole question of our mercantile ma 

I have put before the house as well as I could the reasons for these rules and ^ 
believe they are not so oppressive as some shipowners appear to think. I am an: 
to have the cooperation of the shipowners in this matter. If possible, we want i 
rules to receive general assent, and I am quite prepared, especially in regard to ; 
tical detaUs and plans, to receive representations and discuss the matter wit! 
shipowners. 

Sir Gilbert Parker. Perhaps the right honorable gentleman will allow me t 
a question. In the earlier part of his speech he said, in view of the report o 
advisory committee and in vifew of Lord Mersey's report and the investigations o 
own department, it was advisable to have some statutory provision regarding the o 
ization of discipline, and I believe he said he was going to appoint a commj 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 67 

Lsh to know whether it is the right honorable gentleman's intention to appoint a 
moittee to inquire into this question, and I want to know does the right honorable 
tleman anticipate from the report of that committee that he will come to this house 
i aak for statutory powers to insure that organization of discipline recommended by 
advisory committee and Lord Mersey? 

ir. Buxton. That has nothing to do with the rules we are discussing, although it 
y be germane to the general question of safety at sea. Really it has nothing to 
with tne actual rules now before the house, although I admit it is a most Important 
int in connection with the question of safety at sea. I rather threw out tne sug- 
ition that there should be a committee appointed or something of that sort, because 
3 question bristles with difficulties, and I referred to some of them. It is possibe 
er further consideration, and if the house specially desires it, that a matter of that 
ad might be considered by a committee of the house or departmental committee. 
Lt I think it is too much for the honorable member for Gravesend to ask me before 
at committee has been appointed how far I am prepared to carry out its recommen- 
tions, because that is a question which I am unable to answer. 
In view of what has been said by a considerable number of honorable members 
.d by my honorable friends the member for Hexham and the member for Black- 
ars in re^gard to the functions and position of the board of trade in connection with 
e mercantile marine, I should like to say a few words. The board of trade has 
ready great and responsible duties to carry out. The result of all this considera- 
m and inquiry will undoubtedly be that heavier and more responsible duties will 
i placed on the board of trade, and that department will do its best to administer 
em. The court, the advisory committee, and this house have concluded that 
rther duties should be thrown upon the board. The guiding i)rinciple of the board 
trade has been and ought to oe, while protecting the public, to avoid as far as 
lesible diminishing the sense of responsibility on the part of owners and masters 
the mercantile marine. The coimtry does not desire a State-controlled shipping 
dustry in the full sense of the word, or the State should enforce upon the parties 
rectly concerned the observance of a minute code of rules on all manner of subjects, 
aving little or no elasticity or initiative to the owners, and at the same time trans- 
rring responsibilities from the parties concerned to the State. To do that would 
srtainly be to discourage enterprise and possibly to court disaster. On the other 
ind, the State does desire to obtain reasonable security that the ship which has to 
ffry the human freight should be well designed, well built, and well equipped, 
id that precautions should be taken by the Government department to secure that 
>iect for the public. It is a difficult and a delicate matter to adjust the duties and 
► avoid, on the one hand, the Scylla of overinterference or reducing the responsi- 
ility of the shipowner or interfering with and retarding progress, and at the same time 
» avoid the Charybdis of failing to secure safety at sea. 

Parliament has intentionally given the board of trade somewhat limited powers, 
Ut I think it is obvious that what has occurred of late will necessitate a very con- 
derable addition to the duties and obligations of the board of trade. The House, 
I considering the question as a whole, must bear in mind that it is of real importance 
idle securing safety at sea not to materially weaken the responsibilities of the owners 
od masters or intenere with the development of the ship and its accessories. There 
I a middle course between the two extremes, and that course we desire to follow at 
16 board of trade. 

I thank the House for allowing me to trespass on its time, but I had to speak at some 
mgth in order to meet the criticisms of the honorable member for Liverpool and others, 
have done so because both inside the House and outside there has been, I think, 
considerable amount of misunderstanding with regard to the effect and operation 
I these rules. I can not help thinking, however, that when they are fairly consid- 
red in the light of what has been said this afternoon that the shipowners and others 
ipiesenting the great mercantile marine in this country will desire, what I am sure 
ley do desire as far as possible, to carry life-saving appliances on their ships and will 
their best to meet these rules in a friendly spirit, and I on my side will do my best 
) meet any reasonable objection they are able to bring against them. 

Senator Hitchcock. Are you confining yourself to the differences 
•etween the terms of this convention that has been entered into at 
iondon and the La FoUette bill ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. In some instances I am, but I want to say that 
ven if the terms for safety as prescribed in the La Follette bill, that 

to say, boats for all, two able seamen or men of higher rating for 
rery boat — that is, amongst the crew of 7 or 9 or 11 as may be 



68 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

necessary, even if those things, the two main things in the La Follett^ 
bill which deal with the question of safety, even if those had been 
adopted by the convention I could not have signed the* conventioui 
because in my opinion— and I was so deeply convinced of that that I 
quit — the convention takes away from the United States any right 
to determine for itself the seaworthiness, or to interfere with the 
manning of foreign vessels leaving our ports and this is the question ol 
safety. The safety certificate will cover all that, and I am dow 
coming to that particular phase of it. 

In article 13 of the convention, page 11, it is provided that the ship- 
owners themselves, that is, the larger shipowners, large shipping 
companies, shall agree among themselves upon ocean lanes, and i1 
goes on to say: 

The high contracting parties undertake, further, touae their influence to induci 
the owners of all vessels crossing the Atlantic to follow as far as possible the routei 
adopted by the principal companies. 

On the question of safety, recommendation No. 10 of the final con- 
vention, page 68, runs as follows: 

The Governments of the high contracting parties should consider the question OJ 
approaching the companies and shipowners concerned with a view to securing thai 
vessels crossing the North Atlantic shall not pass over the Banks of Newfoundland 
during the fishing season. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. What are you reading from ? 
Mr. FuRUSETH. I am reading from recommendation No. 10 of th€ 
final protocol. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. What page ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Page 68, recommendation No. 10. 

Senator Lodge. It says: 

Shall not pass over the Banks of Newfoundland during the fishing season. 

Mr. FuRUSETH. It is not forbidden in the convention to pass ovei 
the Banks of Newfoundland. They recommend that they shall nol 
do so. The Banks of Newfoundland are crowded with fishing men 
and fishing vessels durii^ a certain part of the year. 

Senator Hitchcock. Do you favor a prohibition ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Unquestionably I would. However, that mattei 
did not come up while I was there. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Article 13 leaves the matter entirelj 
discretionary as to route, does it not ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. As to routes; yes. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Or lanes of travel ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Or lanes. 

On the matter of the comparative value of the men in the deck 
department or men in the steward's department or in the engineer's 
department, their comparative value for purposes of boatmen, foi 
purposes of the handling of boats, I would like to caU your attention 
to that part of the memorial of American seamen which is printed 
beginning on page 120. That deals with the able seaman and hifi 
duties. It is in this same document you have before you. 

Senator Hitchcock. What page ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. This is the international conference, beginning ot 
page 120. 

I will now take up article 15 of the convention, page 11. Tha^ 
reads: 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 69 

The Grovemments of the high contracting parties undertake to maintain, or^ if it 
UB necessary, to adopt, measures for the purpose of insuring tJiat, ^m the point of 
^ew of safety of life at sea, the vessels defined in article 2 shall be sufficiently and 
"^iciently manned. 

That meanS; of course, that each power will set a standard for 

jelf. 

Senator Burton. What page is that ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. That is on page 11, Senator. That means, of 
ourse, that each country will determine the standard for itself, and 
"at the safety certificate will prevent any interference with that 

andard on the part of any other nation. It will not prevent each 
^dividual nation from setting a higher standard for itself, but it 
will do so at the peril of being driven from the ocean by competition. 

Article 68 of tne convention is the final matter that I shall deal 
^th here. It is on page 26. 

Senator HrrcHCOCK. i ou did not really state your objection to that 
article that you just read. 

Mr. FuRUSETH. My objection to that article is that if the United 
States adopts this convention the seamen^s bill as it passed the House 
J )ecomes an impossibility, because the seamen's bill is based on the 
^ Reposition that it shall apply in the harbors of the United States to 
Tall vessels coming within her jurisdiction. The purpose of that was 
to equalize the cost of operation so as to give to the United States 
an equal opportunity with all other nations upon the ocean. You 
can not reach that point except by giving to the seamen the freedom 
to quit, and then set a standard of efficiency for your own vessels, 
and make that applicable to all other vessels. In so doing you will 
level the average cost of operation of boats up to the cost in the 
American ports, and there will be no distinction between the wage 
cost of a German vessel or an English vessel or an Italian vessel or an 
American vessel. 

Senator Williams. In an American port ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. In an American port. But it will not stop there; 
shipowners know that wages depend upon the port and that their 
men will leave to get the higher wages in ports of the United States; 
iliey will pay the American wages at or from the home port, so that 
the men may not quit the vessSI here. Their only remedy will be to 
"€|pve those men a wage and give them a treatment which will take 
away from those men the desire to quit the vessel, and thus it will 
fiQualize the cost or the wage rate. The wage rate in the ports from 
wnich those vessels come to the United States would increase cor- 
respondingly. On this question see Memorial of American Seamen, 

This convention provides that it will not interfere with vessels 
f^of other nations. They now carry Japanese, Chinese, lascars, and 
South African negroes to the extent that there is about 100,000 of 
tern in the mercnant marine of Great Britain. They come to our 
bjports and take our cargoes in opposition to American vessels, which 
niust pay American rates of wages. Thus the steamship Ockenfelz 
niay be mentioned as an example: She came right from India with 
4 lascar crew, which got in trouble on the Grand Banks. The 
Wars could not stand the snow and cold. She came to 
Philadelphia. That is a vessel belonging to the Hansa Shipping 
Co. of Germany. They shipped those men in the Orient, paying them 






tt 



e( 
ei 






(^ 



hi 



70 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

$12 a month and board themselves, according to the testimony 
one of the shipowners. They bring the vessels here with those 
and our laws and our treaties with foreign nations make it our d 
to see that those men shall not quit their vessels. We ^arantee 
the treaties that we now have that we will arrest and deliver 
men back to the vessels, thus giving those vessels an advantage 
the wage cost of operation over our own vessels, except as far as 
licensed officers are concerned, of 5 to 1. The testimony before 
House committee was that they could get the men for $12, incluc 
board. That is, board themselves. And the testimonv was that 
American wages are $45 a month, with $15 for board, meaning 
a month, which is 1 to 5. 

This thing will continue under the treaty (see Art. 68, p. 26), 
cause under this treaty, as I read it, you can never pass theLaFolle 
bill or anything like it, not until after 1921. 

Senator Hitchcock. How can you do it then ? 

Mr. Fubuseth. Then by denouncing the treaty, after five ye 
The treaty according to its terms, article 69, page 26, is perpetm 
but may abrogate after five years. When it has stood for five ye 
1915 to 1920, it may be denounced, and it shall run for one year afi 
it is denounced. So that only by denouncing the treaty in 19! 
could you pass any legislation which would equalize the cost of ope; 
tion and give the American vessels a chance. Only after 1921 co 
that be done as this article now reads. 

Senator Hitchcock. You mean if the House should pass the 
Follette bill as it came from the Senate it would be in contraventio]|_ 
of this? . 

Mr. FuRUSETH. It would be incontravention not only as far 
boats and men on passenger vessels are concerned — that is, the skiD 
men who handle boats, but the control over the vessels in our pa 
which the La Follette bill provides for is sacrificed in the treaty, 
could not go on board a vessel and say to them, ^^Your crew is ine] 
cient.'' Their answer would be : ''There is a safety treaty. You ha 
agreed that in the matter of a crew our rules shall govern." The cei 
tificate will cover that matter. Under the safety certificae all.thi 
you can do on a vessel is to go on board and look at the safety c 
tificate, and unless the vesse^ has been on some serious trouble, 
that there is an apparent unseaworthiness — you can not examine ^ 
to whether she is up to the safety certificates or not — unless there B| 
an apparent unseaworthiness, to question the certificate and to 
beyond the certificate would be to question the good faith of the power 
that issued the safety certificate. 

Senator Hitchcock. How about the treatment of men who desert 
in American ports ? 

Mr. FuRusETH. The men who desert in American ports under tii* 
treaty will be arrested and returned to the vessel. I am just going 
to come to that. That is the last article I am going to read. Article 
15, page 11, by the way, which deals with the question of the number; 
of men, was up in the committee on which I served, and it was siBa^; 
laid down as a principle that all vessels should be efficiently and sum- 
ciently mannea. It was not given to anybody to enforce. It was 
left to everybody to enforce in their port. That change came later, 
when it is plainly put in the hands of the individual nation which 
owns the vessel. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 71 

As to article 68, page 26, that reads: 

The treaties, conventions, and arrangements concluded prior to this convention 
all continue to have full and complete effect as regards — 
(1^ Vessels excepted from the convention. 

(2) Vessels to wnich it applies in respect of subjects for which the convention has 
3t expressly provided. 

It is understood that, the subject of this convention being safet^^ of life at sea, 
uestions relating to the well-being and health of passengers, and in particular of 
migrants, as weU as other matters relative to their transport, continue subject to the 
igiiuation of the different States. 

Included in that is necessarily all the treaties which deal with the 
luestion of the men, because the first of all safety provisions is men. 
They have already argued that before the House committee; those 
irho represented the foreign interests claimed that desertion would 
lestroy safety to destroying teamwork. 

(1) Vessels excepted from the convention. 

It says on those the treaties shall continue in force; they arc 
■eenacted on all the vessels excepted from this convention. 

(2) Vessels to which it applies, in respect of subjects for which the convention has 
lot expressly provided. 

So that in every vessel, regardless of what is in those treaties which 
low exist, and under which the seamen are arrested, detained, and 
ielivered back, will be reenacted, instead of being repealed, as was 
provided in the La FoUette bill. 

In closing, this section states something which I do not quite un- 
derstand, but to which I wish to call to vour attention. It is : 

It is understood that, the subject of this convention being safety of life at sea, ques- 
tions relating to the well-being and health of passengers, and in particular of emi- 
n^ts, as well as other matters relative to their transport, continue subject to the legis- 
lation of the different States. 

That seems to me to mean that any laws that the individual nation 
which owns the ship has enacted with reference to space for passen- 
gers, how they shall be treated, and all about them, becomes the only 
law that can be enforced and only by the individual State whicn 
owns the vessel, and that as a result our passenger act as it exists at 
the present time, and the space that it provides which is larger than 
is provided by Europe, will cease to apply to foreign vessels, so that 
even with reference to the space occupied by the passengers you 
could not examine the foreign vessel. And it seems to me that under 
this you could not place anybody on board the vessel, say, coming 
from Italy, or anywhere, to look after the interests of those passengers 
on the way as is contemplated in the bill that deals with immigrants. 

Senator Hitchcock. Do not a number of those countries provide 
for inspection themselves ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Sure. 

Senator Hitchcock. Was that not intended to retain their rights 
to protect their own people who are sailing on vessels from their 
own ports ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Sure. 

Senator Swanson. Read that section again, please. 
. Mr. FuRUSETH. It reads: 

It is Understood that, the subject of this convention being safety of life at sea, 
questions relating to the well being and health of passengers, and in particular of 
emigrants, as well as other matters relative to their transport, continue subject to the 
legislation of tihe different States. 



72 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Senator Burton. You interpret '^ different States'' as me 
the States owning the boats carrying them ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Certainljr; that runs all through the treaty, t 
everything of that description shall be as the State owning the 
determines, and they snail determine and inspect in accorda 
with the treaty. Having done that, no other State has any rigjii 
as I understand the matter, to go beyond the safety certifier 
unless there is a palpable and visible unseaworthiness. 

Senator Hitchcock. It does not deny to another State the ri^ 
to control immigrants to or from her own ports, but simply excepi 
it from the operation of the treaty? It is not an intematio 
matter, but a otate matter. 

Mr. FuRUSETH. I do not think it exempts it. If it had never 
mentioned at all — because the statement of the treaty itself in 
beginning says that in everything that the treaty deals with it 
be supreme. If they had not mentioned this matter of immigrant 
at all it would not have dealt with it, and would not have be 
included, but having mentioned it it comes within the safety cer 
cate, as I see it. At least, I bring that before you Senators in ord 
that you may inquire into it. Of course, I look upon this matter froi 
a layman's point of view — purely from a sailor s point of view, 
may be mistaken in some of the tnings that 1 say here. 1 come hep 
in the utmost sincerity to tell vou how this thing looks to me, and * 
seems to me that if it is capable of two constructions this is the ti 
to find it out, and not afterwards. 

The number of orientals, the speed with which the oriental i 
crowding out the white man upon the ocean commerce, is such t 
Mr. Gottheil, who represented the foreign shipowners before 
House committee, said that there are more of them on the ocean th 
anybody has any idea of. 

I will close my statement to you by reading a short statement from 
a document that was filed. That is known as Senate Document 216 
Sixty-third Congress, first session. It is written by me and wi 
submitted to the Senate by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Sutherland. 
It reads : 

An international conference of safety of life at sea is coming; but we fear that litttel 
of real value will come from that unless it is preceded by proper legislation here s^J 
ting a minimum. We fear that the forces which have been and now are engaged inll 
destroying the customs upon which skill and safety rested, and which have succeeded ! 
in preventing legislation so long needed, will in some way dominate the conference. | 

With the proper legislation enacted here and thus a minimum set, that conference) 
would be valuable. Other nations would have to follow our lead owing to pressure ■ 
of economic conditions; they would, therefore, make a virtue of necessity and the cou-.i 
ference would very likely recommend similar legislation to other countries. j 

Sea power is in the seaman. Ships are but the seaman's working tools. If there ; 
be a desire in the white race to retain its sea power the Caucasian must be brought to 
sea again. Nations which desire to share in that sea power must depend upon their 
own citizens or subjects. If a reasonable safety at sea be desired, men of strength, 
courage, and skill must be induced to again seek the sea and they will not come to 
accept existing status nor tolerate other existing conditions. 

Senator McCumber. I wish you would for my benefit, if not for the 
rest of the Senators, explain what there is about the complexity of. 
the mechanism of lowering boats that necessitates three years' serv- 
ice at sea in order to be able to perform that service. That, at least 
is important to me. I know nothing about it and I should like to be 
informed. 



SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 73 

It. Fxjruseth. There is a licensed officer here who has been sailing 
years as mate and master, who would Uke to have about 10 min- 
s before the committee on this very subject. But I can say this, 
it the able-seaman document goes closely into that. Personally, 
^t now I will say, because I expect him to deal with that question, 
you will give him the time to do it, that the lowering of a boat 
?^olves the handling of tackles, the coolness that comes from a con- 
int training and constant observation of the sea. The vessel is 
Uing, the two men who lower the boat have got to work together, 
ey must act together, and they must understand each other, and 
ey must understand the sea. 

We never trust a man to lower anything heavy on board a vessel 
itil he has been for a considerable time on board the vessel. The 
rst boat that was lowered from the Voltumo was lowered by the 
aster and the third officer. It got in the water, but was upset, 
tat was because the releasing gears failed to work perfectly. The 
"ter tackle unhooked before the forward tackle. The result was 
lat the boat upset. When the next boat was lowered it was low- 
ed by men who had no experience at all, to speak of, and they 
pset the boat by lowering one tackle too fast and spilled the people 
it. If you lower more on one tackle than you do on the other, the 
3at will be upset. If you do not let go togetner and let the boat come 
ith a run into the water when low enough to do so, when 
le vessel roUs to the boat the boat may be smashed against the side. 
/ is all a question of judgment and control over the tackle; judgment 
: what to do and when to do it. But those things can not be learned 
iccept by men who are in constant observation of the sea and know 
hat the sea is. It can be learned, however, because the sea runs 
I certain ways. When the third wave is passed, you have got to 
3t the boat down, because then there is the moment of lull. The 
'oltumo had boats enough, but the trouble was that all the men she 
ad were six able seamen, six ordinary seamen, and four quarter- 
lasters. 

Senator Sutherland. How many boats ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Something like 20. She had boats enough. I 
ave the number of them here. I have the whole statement of it 
ere, as I took it out of the investigation in England as printed in 
le London Times. 

There is another remarkable thing about that. Senator: When the 
hrmania came to the Volturno's aid, came near her, she lowered her 
oat. I talked with a man who was in that boat when I came across 
1 the Garmania from England. There were some men in that boat 
'ho did not understand how to use their oars properly in a seaway, 
"hey could row beautifully in still waters, but the moment the boat 
ot out from the stern and got the full force of the wind some of the 
are were broken, because they did not get them out of the rowlocks, 
nd some of the oars were lost; so all they could do was to throw a 
rag and float around until the Garmania came around and picked 
lem up again. In the matter of the Grosser Kurfeurst the first boat 
lat went from the Grosser Kurfeurst to rescue the people on the 
oltumo could not get alongside. She came back again on board the 
3ssel. The same officer with a different crew went to the boat, and 
ley got the boat to the vessel and took off some passengers. The 



74 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

greatest number of passengers was taken oflf by the Russian steanw 
the Tsar, and they were taken off with one boat in the dark of tl 
night, but it was a boat containing no one but seamen of the b( 
kind. 

There is another matter with reference to those things that shoi 
be called to your attention I think. That is, that Germany, Ri 
France, Italy, and Austria compel their people to serve in the nai 
and so a fireman on board those vessels, if he is over the age of 
has usually been in the navy, and he has usually had the training 
the boats that comes from tliat; so he is of mucn more value. 

But, coming back again to the VoltumOj when the captaia 
that the boats were swamped and gone, he went and cut tne falls 
the boats so that no more boats could be lowered at all. Then wIm 
there were a whole lot of vessels around him, some 10 or 12, 
second mate of the Voltumo said to the master — and I had persoi 
information about that, because I was for three or four days toget' 
with the second engineer of the VoUumo in London — the sec( 
mate said to the master, '^I can lower a boat and get to the Grm 
Kurfurst. We had better do that to prove to them that a boat ci 
live.'' So the two able seamen that were left on board the vessel, 
man from the fireroom, a coal passer who, by the way, was simpl 
working his way over from Europe to America; a man who had m 
experience in the United States Navy, and a thorough boatmf 
The three of them, and one of the West Indians, a man who " 
some experience in boats — these four and the second mate got 
boat down. They had to droj) it, because the falls were cut. 
could lower it to a certain point, then they had to drop it. Th( 
lowered it and dropped it and got it into the sea safely and got to ' 
Grosser Kurfurst with her. 

That is the difference between men who know how to do thosft^ 
things and men who do not. 

Senator Williams. That proved to the Grosser Kurfurst people tlief= 
could lower the boats, and then they went ahead ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Exactly. 

Mr. WiUiam Wescott, who has been a licensed officer for years, 
would like to speak to you, just on the question of the skill of thfl 
men, for 10 minutes or so. 

I am very much obliged to you. Senators. 

Senator Pomerene. May I just ask you one question before yo\^ 
leave? You have spoken generally of the regulations which y<H3 
think ought to be adopted by the Congress touching this subject; 
which, of course, differ essentially and radically from the regulatioO* 
which no prevail. Supposing that we adopt those regulations gov- 
erning not only our own vessels, but foreign vessels when they coiii* 
into our ports, and assuming, now, that those regulations are not 
satisfactory to the foreign countries, in what respect could thej 
retaliate by the adoption of other regulations ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. By refusing to arrest, detain, and deliver oui 
Americans who might desert. That is one, and that would go wili 
the treaty itself. 

As to what other things they could do I can not see anything thej 
could do that would be effective. I do not see how they couW 
undertake to retaUate upon this country because it adopted lat^ 
for its own vessels and made those rules applicable to foreign veS' 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 76 

s 'when they came within our jurisdiction. That, I understand, 
from th9 international law. I heard the Senator from Mississippi 
lOte it that way while I was sitting in the Senate gallery one day* 
it what is it we are trying to do ? It is to abolish the imprison* 
ent, the involuntary servitude. Are they going to fight against 
tat? They can maneuver out oi that and tie our hands so that 
e can not do it; but as far as openly fighting against it, I do not 
je how they can in these days. The other proposition is half pay 
>r the men, so that they may have some money with which to 
ef end their freedom. Putting that to the moral sense of the human 
ice to-day, they would not have any chance. There are no men in 
ay country, Europe or America, not deeply and personally in ter- 
jted who, when told the story as it is, would not raise up in one 
lass and say, "This thing shall cease.'' 

What other things is it that the La Follette seamen's bill says 
lould be done ? You shall have boats for all, not simply for 75 per 
Bnt, but for all. In the crew of these boats you shall have two men 
t least that know how to handle them, and that surely is the very 
mallest that you should have. 
Senator Williams. Two able-bodied seamen ? 
Mr. FuRUSETH. Two able-bodied seamen. Those are the differ- 
nces, but those are differences that are conclusively barred here in 
his treaty, so that if we adopt the treaty, the struggle of the sea- 
aan is over. 

Senator O'Gorman. I want to ask a qiuestion suggested by the 
luestion of the Senator from Ohio as to what retaUation might be 
)racticed against us by foreign powers with reference to our shipping. 
[)o you know how many smps in the overseas trade are flying the 
\.merican flag ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Six on the Atlantic and about 12 on the Pacific. 

Senator O'GtORMan. Eighteen altogether ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Eighteen altogether; that is, on modem ships. 

Senator O'Gorman. How many German vessels are engaged in the 
overseas trade ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Oh, I could not count them. Senator; I do not 
know; there are hundreds. 

Senator O'Gorman. As a matter of fact, there are thousands ? 

Mr. FuRUSETH. Yes. To me it looks Uke this, that we agree by 
this treaty that we are going to continue a discrimination in favor 
of foreign vessels against our own on the ocean and in our own har- 
bors. That is how it looks to me. I thank you very much. Senators, 
fervour kind attention. 

uie Acting Chairman. What is the pleasure of the committee as 
to hearing Mr. Wescott ? 

Senator O'GtORMan. I move that the gentleman be invited to 
occupy 10 minutes in stating his views. 

The motion was agreed to. 

STATEMEITT OF MR. WILLIAM A. WESCOTT, EEPBESENTINQ 
THE ASSOCIATION OF MASTERS, MATES, AND PILOTS 
OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN. 

Mr. Wescqtt. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I only desire to speak 
about article 47 on page 63 of the regulations, in reference to certified 
lifeboat men. 



76 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

I have refrained from taking any part in the controversy in refi 
ence to the international conference on safety of life at sea, and 
would still refrain from doing so, but being a licensed man myself 
representing 1,500 ocean licensed masters and mates, I consider 
my duty as such and in the interests of the traveling public in refi 
ence to safety of life at sea, to protest against the adoption of 
part of the proposed treaty whicn deals with certificated boatmen. 

A man who learned to row a boat on the Potomac River, 
hoisting and lowering the same, could be issued a certificate cu3 
lifeboat hand on an ocean vessel. That is what I desire to call tl 
committee's attention to. That is the only reason that I am appei 
ing before the committee. 

1 desire to call the committee's attention to the fact that article 
of the regulations provides that an applicant for a certificate as 
lifeboat man must prove that he has been trained in all the operatic; 
connected with launching lifeboats and the use of oars; that he 
acquainted with the practical handling of the boats themselves. 

Mr. Chairman, my interpretation of article 47 of the regulation^- 
would permit the issuing of certificates to men as lifeboat hands wl 
have never seen a day's sea service in their lives. If such is the c 
and the proposed treaty is adopted by the Senate, it will be the me 
of forcing the masters and mates of ocean vessels to intrust the li 
of innocent women and children in case of accidents to such men 
I have Just mentioned. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe in boats for all on ocean vessels and t 
practical seamen for each boat, with valid certificates, said certifr- 
cates to state that such seamen are skilled in the handling of lifeboats 
at sea, and that all of the crew of every steam vessel, freight (wr- 
passenger, should be drilled in the handling of lifeboats, for they ma; 
be ever so skillful, no two men can with any certainty of safety get 
lifeboat (3lear of the ship's side in an average sea crowd to its capaci^ 
with passengers. Leave aside the question of a heavy sea, altnoui^ 
that, too, must be considered. Take simply the average conditioni 
at sea. The lifeboat must be lowered with its full load of hysterical] 
men, women, and children, down the side of a ship that is neverl 
steady, into more or less of a seaway, then crowded to capacity as she* 
is, she must be instantly maneuvered away from the ship's side. Toj 
take coal passengers from the bunkers, or waiters from the cabiny 
and attempt to teach them how to handle a lifeboat by simply havings 
them lower a practicallv empty boat down the side of a perfectljTi 
steady ship, into the still waters of a barbor, is like trying to maki' 
something out of nothing. It can not be done. The so-called 
''drill" is as nothing compared with the use of the boats in actuali 
service, in case of accidents. . > 

Mr. Chairman, the masters and mates of ocean vessels, if the pro- 
posed treaty is adopted, will be compelled to assume responsibihties . 
lor which they have had no voice in creating, and in case of disasters 
like the Titanic^ Voltumo, Monroe^ and many others the same old 
question will be put forth: What were the master and mates doinfft^ 

If the proposed treaty is adopted the question can be veiy easuy^ 
answered by saying that they could do nothing, on account oi having 
inefficient boat crews and men that could not carry out the orders 
given. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 77 

want to state to the committee in all sincerity that if the pro- 
ed treaty is adopted that I for one would not accept a position 
a master or mate on an ocean vessel carrying passengers for treble 

> present compensation, for no licensee! man can do justice to 
aself and the mnocent women and children that have intrusted 
iir lives to his care, unless he has an efficient crew to assist him, 
d the proposed treaty does not provide that. 

Senator Lodge. Could you not describe in a few words how a boat 
loaded ? Suppose it is loaded with 50 people who get in after the 
,vits have been swimg out? 

Mr. Wescott. After the davits have been swimg out it is cus- 
mary, Senator, to lower — if you have time — to lower the boat 
>wn to the passenger deck and. place your passengers in the boat^ 
en lower the boat. If you can not do that, you will take and put 
le people, women and children, if the vessel is rolling, into the 
)at on the upper deck. 

Senator Lodge. The davits have been swung out and the people 
•e in the boat? 
Mr. Wescott. In the boat. 

Senator Lodge. Do you propose to have two able seamen in the 
>at with the passengers? 

Mr. Wescott. I propose to have practical seamen in the boat. 
Senator Lodge. How do they lower that boat ? 
Mr. Wescott. There must be two men, Senator, that understand 
3w to lower the boat, as well as the two men in the boat. 
Senator Lodge. One at each end ? 
Mr. Wescott. One at each end. 

Senator Lodge. Ahold of the rope which runs through the tackle ? 
Mr. Wescott. Yes; if it is the old-style davits. Some of them 
ave brakes. Some of them the fall is on a cylinder and they also 
ave brakes ; they have various appliances in regard to the lowering 
f lifeboats. 

Senator Lodge. Below in the lifeboat ? 
Mr. Wescott. Yes, sir. 

Senator Lodge. Not on the deck of the vessel ? 
Mr. Wescott. They are on the deck of the vessel. 
Senator Lodge. They are not in with the passengers ? 
Mr. Wescott. No, su*. Not in the boat with the passengers; the 
wo men on deck lower the boat. 

Senator Lodge. And the men in with the passengers are the men 
lat handle the oars ? 

Mr. Wescott. They are the men in the boat. 
Senator Lodge. Then after they lower this boat they can go on and 
)wer another boat ? 

Mr. Wescott. They can go on and lower another boat. 
Senator Lodge. It does not take two men with each boat? 
Mr. Wescott. No, sir. 
Senator Williams. If they had time ? 

Mr. Wescott. If they had time. That is why I stated they all 
lould be trained; that there should be two practical seamen for 
ich boat and the balance of the crew should be thoroughly trained 

> as to assist these men. 

Senator Hitchcock. Your position is that the number of men 
ould be such as to enable the lowering of all lifeboats at the same 
ne? 



78 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Mr. Wescott. Absolutely, Senator; absolutely, because a gri 
many times three or four minutes is very precious. 

Senator Hitchcock. That is what 1 did not imderstand — ^whetiii 
the men went down with the passengers or whether they remained 
deck and could do some other work. 

Mr. Wescott. The boat crew, of course, they go in the boat. 

Senator Hitchcock. Do the two able seamen remain on deck? 

Mr. Wescott. No; the two able seamen are in the boat. 

Senator Swanson. They lower it and go with the boat ? 

Mr. Wescott. They go with the boat. There should be other mi 
in the boat to assist to try to keep the boat off the ship's sides. 

Senator HrrcHCOCK. After they have lowered the boat from 
deck they go down themselves ? 

Mr. Wescott. No, sir; they are in the boat after that. 

Senator Lodge. Two on the deck and two on the boat? 

Senator Hitchcock. I understand you to say that the two wl 
lower the boat are on the deck of the vessel? 

Mr. Wescott. They are. 

Senator Hitchcock. And they remain on the deck? 

Mr. Wescott. They remain on the deck. Probably after the boa 
get in the water, if it was very serious and all the boats were oul 
uiey probably would sUde down the fall, and if they could not g( 
in tne boats any other way they might jump overboard and be takettl 
from the water by the use of a boat hook. 

Senator HrrcHCOCK. When the boat strikes the water the men itt 
the boat loosen the tackle from the boat ? 

Mr. Wescott. Most of them have self-releasing gear. 

Senator Hitchcock. It is an automatic affair? 

Mr. Wescott. It is automatic; yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. And two men are strong enough to lower the 
boat, one on each end ? 

Mr. Wescott. Oh, yes, two men are strong enough to lower the 
boat, but there are no two men. Senator, that can take a raft, or any 
three men that can take a lifeboat with 60 passengers and maneuver 
her away from the ship's sides. 

Senator Hitchcock. That has got to be done immediately ? i 

Mr. Wescott. Immediately; and for two men or three men to do' 
that as the treaty calls for, it is ridiculous, Senator. 

Senator Hitchcock. These two men that lower the boat from the 
deck of the ship are under the orders of some one ? ■ 

Mr. Wescott. Under the orders of the officers of the ship. 

Senator Hitchcock. So they work harmoniously ? 

Mr. Wescott. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCumber. I have always wanted to know why, with our; 
present ability in mechanical apparatus, it is not possible to have 
some kind of a mechanism that would lower both ends of the boat the 
same by mechanical action and not b}r hand. I can not understand 
why it is not possible to have such an instrument. 

Mr. Wescott. There is a gentleman in New York by the name of 
Raymond that has patent boat falls. 

Senator Pomerene. Has what? 

Mr. Wescott. He has patent boat falls, whereby both ends of the 
boat are lowered equally. 

Senator Sutherland. Automatically? 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA, 79 

ir. Wescott. Automatically. 

ienator McCumbeh. One end can not go down before the other in 

practical working arrangement ? 

Sir. Wescott. No, sir. 

Senator McCumbeh. Is it in extensive use ? 

Mr. Wescott. No, sir; I have never noticed it on any ship. 

Senator Burton. What do you say the inventor's name is ? 

Mr. Wescott. His name is Raymond, of New York. That is the 

Jy one I have ever known of. 

Senator Pomerene. Has it been tried to such an extent that you 

ink it is practicable ? 

Mr. Wescott. I do not know whether it has been approved by the 

)ard of United States Steamboat Inspectors. That I can not say. 

Senator Burton. You have been master of boats ? 

Mr. Wescott. Yes, sir. 

Senator Burton. Passenger or freight ? 

Mr. Wescott. Freight. 

Senator Burton, i ou have never been a master of passenger 

lats? 

Mr. Wescott. No, sir. 

Senator Burton. How about the boats on the Pacific coast ? Do 

lu think these two able seamen should be with every ship ? 

Mr. Wescott. Yes, sir. 

Senator Burton. Passenger boats as well as freight ? 

Mr. Wescott. Of course, freight boats we do not pay much atten- 

)n to those. Of course, they have able seamen for them. 

Senator Burton. You need, according to your statement here, not 

lIv the two men to lower the boat, but a sufficient number of men 

sides in the boat to row it ? 

Mr. Wescott. Yes, sir. They should be trained so that aU the 

ew can participate in the launching of hfeboats. No two men, 

nator, can get a boat clear of a ship side in a seaway. 

Senator Burton. Is it not true that a diflFerent kind of capacity is 

quired for lowering that boat than is required to handle it after it 

ts in the water ? It is abihty with oars after they reach the water, 

it not ? 

Mr. Wescott. Yes ; that is where it takes the skill and science. 

Senator Burton. Where ? 

Mr. Wescott. After you get the boat in the water, if there is any 

nd of sea running it is to maneuver and get it clear of the ship's 

le. You will notice from the accounts of aU accidents that so many 

)ats were capsized; boats smashed against the ship's side. That 

the danger. 

Senator Burton. In lowering the boat mechanically, ingenuity, 

miharity with the use of those davits is required ? 

Mr. Wescott. That is what is required. 

Senator Burton. When the boat touches the water, then skill and 

)ihty to act as an oarsman is required ? That is what you are count- 

g, the least number of men that ought to be in the boat to handle 

e oars, manage it after it gets in the water ? 

Mr. Wescott. I should say there should be 2 practical seamen 

d 3 men, 3 other men at least, in any boat thit carries 35 passen- 

rs, and if she carries 35 to 50 I should say 7 ; and if she carries 60 to 

, I should say 9. 



80 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Senator Burton. Your thought is that the men who lower 1^" ^ 
boat and handle the tackle, that they should be able seamen of 
years' experience at sea ? 

Mr. Wescott. I am only stating, Senator, in regard to practi 
seamen. I do not wish to get into any controversy. 

Senator Burton. Do you think the men who lower the boat she 
necessarily be able seamen of 3 years* experience at sea? 
- Mr. Wescott. No; I can say that I believe the other members 
the crew can be drilled to lower the boat under the supervision 
the officers, but there must ebsolutely be practical seamen in the boi 
in order to get her clear of the ship's side. 

Senator Burton. So the requirement for able seamen is rather 
oarsmen who get her away ? That is your idea, is it ? 

Mr. Wescott. And also of course thie men wno get it clear; the; 
must understand also the handling of tackles. Of course the offi 
on deck he superintends the lowering; he trusts to the men in 
boat; the able seamen must prepare those tackles; they must see thi 
the tackles are in proper order; they must see before the boat i 
swung out that the tackles are clear and in working order, and nobod 
but a practical seaman knows that. 

Senator Williams. Does not much depend on the knowledge th 
men have as to the nature of the sea and its conduct, so as to knowj 
just when to drop the boat? 

Mr. Wescott. Absolutely. 

Senator Burton. They often have to drop the boat right away in 
the face of emergency ? 

Mr. Wescott. Not necessarily. You take a vessel when she is 
rolling, if you would drop your boat when she would list over, sa; 
that you would lower your boat on the port side and you woulH 
drop your boat when she lists over to starboard, and when she would 
roll back to port under would go your boat and aU hands would bft" - 
lost. ' 

Senator Burton. That is a matter of experience. 

Senator Sutherland. Let me see if I understand you. Is it yoitf* r 
position there ought to be two practical seamen ? '\ 

Mr. Wescott. Absolutely. fc 

Senator Sutherland. At least two practical seamen ? ^ 

Mr. Wescott. For every lifeboat. ? 

Senator Sutherland. To go away with each lifeboat ? ^ 

Mr. Wescott. Certainly. \ 

Senator Sutherland. To be in the lifeboat and assist in going ^ 
away from the vessel ? : 

Mr. Wescott. There should be two practical seamen assigned to j 
every Hfeboat. ; 

Senator Sutherland. What distinction do you make between \ 
practical seamen and able seamen ? Can a man be a practical seaman 
in your view of it unless he is also an able seaman ? 

Mr. Wescott. No, sir; he can not. 

Senator Sutherland. You use the terms in the same sense ? 

Mr. Wescott. I use the term practical seamen; the reason I 
use that term, Senator, there are some men who can learn the duties 
of an able seaman quicker than others. 

Senator Sutherland. But for the average man you think it 
takes three years to become an able seaman ? 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 81 

At. Wescott. Well, you take seamen serving on steamers, to 
ne right down to the proposition of a practical seaman, why it 
uld be impossible for a man to become an able seaman in the 
ler sense in 10 years on a steamer, because they do not have the 
me kind of work to do; the difference there is is in regard to the 
mdling of sails. Other than that the work is practically the same. 

Senator Sutherland. Did I understand you to say that on the 
3ats upon the Pacific that there were two able seamen for each 
feboat^ 

Mr. Wescott. There are some three or four that are not. 

Senator Sutherland. Some three or four boats ? 

Mr. Wescott. Three or four vessels — I guess maybe half a dozen 
tiat are not. 

Senator Sutherland. Are they American register ? 

Mr. Wescott. Oh, yes. We have only six American vessels, 
essels engaged in the foreign trade on the Pacific coast. Five be- 
)ng to the Pacific Mail Steamship Co. and one belongs to the Great 
[orthem Steamship Co., the Minnesota. 

Senator Sutherland. How about the foreign ships engaged in 
^acific trade between this country and foreign countries as to their 
omplement of boats? 

Mr. Wescott. All vessels running to the Orient have Chinese 
rews. 

Senator Sutherland. Do they carry able seamen for each lifeboat ? 
)o they carry two able seamen or one able seaman? 

Mr. Wescott. That would be impossible for me to find out, 
•enator. The Lord knows they have got enough of them, but as far 
8 their qualifications are concerned, I am unable to say. 

Senator Root. I wish you would state, so we may get it on the 
ecord, just how you know whether a man is an able seaman or not. 

Mr. Wescott. By working with him. 

Senator Root. Does he have no certificate from anybody ? 

Mr. Wescott. Well, a man on a deep-water vessel gets a discharge 
rem the United States shipping commissioner showing the length of 
ime he has served. 

Senator Root. That is all; the length of time he served and your 
)bservation of his abihty at sea ? 

Mr. Wescott. His work, his abiUty at sea. 

Senator Root. So when you say an able seaman you mean an 
sxperienced and competent seaman ? 

Mr. Wescott. That is it. That is what I mean — a practical sea- 
nan. 

Senator Root. What are the ways in which a man may become an 
ible seaman ? You said a Uttle while ago a man could not get there in 
years on a steamer. What could he do to get there ? 

Mr. Wescott. By serving on board a sailing vessel. I mean, to be 
ompetent; what we^in the olden days called an able seaman— that is, 
. man that would understand the rigging of a vessel so he could rig 
ler up and do all kinds of work on board ship. 

Senator Root. Is there no way in which a man may reach that 
egree of proficiency except by serving on a sailing vessel ? 
Tr. Wescott. Oh, yes ; we have a few of them left yet, Senator. 

38444lr-14 6 



82 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Senator Root. The fellow who goes to sea and who wants 
become an able seaman- must he go on a sailing vessel? 

Mr. Wescott. That is, if he wants to becone an able seaman in tl 
term that was used years ago, but othei'A^'ise no; he could go on 
steamer. 

Senator Root. Does not the term '^able seaman" now mean som 
thing different from what it did years ago ? 

Mr. Wescott. Really, as far as the ability is concerned, there 
not the same amount of ability required as there was years ago. 

The Acting Chairman. That is, distinguishing between the woi 
on the steamer and the work on a sailing ship ? 

Mr. Wescott. Yes, sir. 

Senator Burton. On which did you sail — on a sailing vessel or 
steamer, or both ? 

Mr. Wescott. Both. I had my boating experience, Senator, in 
whaler. 

Senator Burton. Yes; a good beginning. Now, as master of 
steamer, how many times were men who had served three years i 
more handling oars on the boats besides, and how much experien* 
did your men have in handling boats ? 

Mr. Wescott. The Pacific coast is an exceptional coast. The m( 
on the Pacific have a greater amount of skill in regard to handlii 
boats than in any other place in the United States on account of oi 
having vessels running to the outside ports; there is a great deal 
fishing; very nearly every sailor at one time or another has been fishii 
in Alaska; and on the Columbia River, fishing on the Columbia Riv 
bar, which is usually very rough water, and they learn how to hand 
the boat. 

Senator Burton. Pursuing that inquiry a little further, what w 
the largest steamer of which you have been master? 

Mr. Wescott. Three thousand five hundred tons. 

Senator Burton. What steamer was it? 

Mr. Wescott. The Meteor. 

Senator Burton. How many times did your men on that boat ha^ 
experience in handling boats off the side in rough weather? 

MI. Wescott. We did not use them at all on that steamer for th 
purpose, because there is no requirement of the United States Gover 
ment for boat drills on freight vessels. On passenger vessels each ti 
they are drilled on the vessel going from San Francisco, plying t 
tween San Francisco and Eureka — the crew are drilled once eve 
five days. 

Senator Burton. Then, your men did not have any experience 
the handling of boats alongside of the steamer during the time y 
were master? 

Mr. Wescott. No, su*. 

Senator Burton. Those men, if they had served two years, ai 
thereby fulfilled this definition of able seamen, would have had : 
experience whatever in the handling of a rowboat off the side of 
vessel ? 

Mr. Wescott. Not if they had been aboard that ship exclusive 
and not been on a passenger vessel. That is why I mentioned 
here, Senator, that i believe that there should be nre and boat di 
on freight vessels as well as on passenger vessels. That fe why 
mention it. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 83 

Senator Burton. This point I wish to bring out. The three years' 
rvice as seamen, and tnat is a service qmte frequent on a large 
imber of freight ships, would have afforded them no experience 
hatever in the handling of Uf eboats or rowboats at the side ? 

Mr. Wescott. Not unless they would be going to an outside port 
' other ports where they have to run hues, and so forth. 

Senator Burton. That would be in port or in calm water ? 

Mr. Wescott. That would be in calm water. 

Senator Lodge. Am I wrong in supposing that the man who has 
ot the habit of the sea — that is, who comes off a fishing fleet, for 
istance — can generally be trusted to know how to run a boat ? 

Mr. Wescott. Any man. Senator, that serves on deck, even if he 
as not had the experience in handling a boat, his work around the 
aip, noticing the sea, would naturally make him better qualified by 
rills than any other in any department, I do not care how much 
rilling they have had. 

Senator Burton. Would you put such a man as that up against 

man who has had real practical experience in the handling of oars 
n a rowboat ? 

Mr. Wescott., Well, I would not say. 

Senator Burton. Just the mere matter of observation, would you 
fut that over against experience ? 

Mr. Wescott. I would put it over, absolutely. Senator, against any 
xperience that a man could have in the handling of boats m smooth 
rater, as far as the sea is concerned. 

Senator Koot. I was asking you about fishermen. We have about 
►,000 that go out to the banks in my State, and they are accustomed 
o lowering boats and rowing in pretty rough water. I take it those 
ften are fit to do that work on a steamer ? 

Mr. Wescott. They are boatmen, absolutely, Senator. They are 
iompetent boatmen, surely. 

Senator Root. They have had the hardest kind of training, really ? 

Mr. Wescott. Yes, sir; certainly. THey are absolutely the best 
rind of boatmen. 

Senator Pomerene. You would rather have a man of thdt kind 
vith three years' practical experience than one who had passed a civil- 
lervi^e examination ? 

Mr. Wescott. Sure. 

Senator McCumber. I have here a letter from the port warden, 
Seattle, Wash., addressed to Mr. Alexander, which deals with the 
lame work discussed by this last witness, and which should be put 
b as a part of the record, which letter is as follows: 

Harbor Department, , 
Seattle, Wash., March 2, 1914. 
Ion. Joshua W. Alexander, 

Chairman of Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: Relative to the merits of Senate biU 136, which is now under consid- 
fation by your honorable committee, I desire to say, and to point out clearly if I 
nay, the three features that the opponents of the bill object to seriously, because it 
Heazts restrictibiis and regulation, and this is just what they do not want. 

Section 12 provides: 

Firet. That 75^er cent of the crew in each department must be able to understand 
ny order given ny the officers of said vessel, and that the certain per cent of the 
eck crew shall be of a rating not less than a))le seaman. 



t 



,/ 



84 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Second. And that there shall be not less than two men to each lifeboat, of 
rating of able seaman or higher. 

Third. And that no person shall be rated as able seaman unless he is 19 yeare 
age and upward and has had three years' service on deck at sea or on the Great ~ 

Now, as an experienced sailor, having served in the old school of seamanship, 
ing served 10 years in the North and South Atlantic trades, 6 years of which wu 
the Cape of Good Hope trade, and have been in service on the Pacific coast for 
last 37 years, doing some coast work from California to Cooks Inlet in southw 
Alaska, but principally in the local transportation lines on Puget Sound. 

I have held a master and pilot's certificate or license for steam vessels since 1 
my present license being the eighteenth issue, and my only purpose in writing 
letter is that you may get the view of a man that has served for years in the fo: 
and successfully, for as a seaman I have never received a blow from an officer, 
have seen seamen abused shamefully on some of the ships that I have served on. 

I have served as master of steam vessels of all classes on these waters, and I ha 
been fairly successful, for I have never been in collision with other vessels, ne 
lost a life, either of passenger or crew, of any vessel under my control, have ne 
had any official action of mine investigated by the local board, of inspectors or 
where, nor have had any damage to a vessel under my command to exceed the 
of $100, and so I may say that I have been fairly successful, and that I ought at 
events to have a fair knowledge of what may be regarded as the prime necessities 
shipboard. 

I regret very much that many of the statements made by the opponents of the bi 
are of an exaggerative character — may I say, with intent to deceive and mislead til 
listener or reader of such statements — ^and often when the truth is stated it is on! 
half told. I refer here particularly to a criticism of the bill made in an article pul 
lished in the New York Sunday Times of January 25, 1914, from the pen of Edwal 
Marshall, in which was embodied the views of one Paul Gottheil. As was 8tat< 
there, he is a member of the well-known shipping fi'rm of Punch, Edye & Co. and 
member— or I should say chairman — of the special committee representing 
steamship lines engaged in the foreign trade, and I think that he has well represeni 
the selfish interests in his criticism of this bill ; but he can deceive no one except " 
who have not read the provisions in said bill. 

Permit me to review these three features that I have mentioned herein. 

First. The percentage of crew that shall imderstand any order given by the offio 
This provision I consider a wise one. It is said that it is a blow intended at 
vessels of the American merchant marine who employ Asiatics in all the diff< 
departments. Granted. An Asiatic seaman employed on American ships in 
oriental trade receives the munificent wage of $8 per month. Can it be possible 
these employers expect to bring jflie American seamen to the level of these Asiai 
or that we should be compelled to compete with them on our own ships? 

I consider this provision of the bill wise (outside of its economic phase), 
d^ree of safety to life and property, it is necessary to have a crew that can unaeis 
an order of the ship's officers, otherwise pandemonium would reign in case of a 
aster at sea. 

Second. That there shall be not less than two men to each lifeboat of the rai 
able seaman or higher. If this number is deemed excessive for each lifeboat 
then it would be better to leave the boats on the wharf before proceeding to sea, 
it would be useless to provide life-saving appliances without having men on ' 
to care for and handle tne same. I regard this provision as absolutely necessary. 

Third. Comes the qualification of the able seaman. Three years at sea is not 
long for any man to serve to become an ''able seaman"; indeed, ne is an apt pupil 
can acquire the desired knowledge within tiiat time. In my early years of 
sea very few men with three years' service to their credit would be accepted as 
seamen, for, as a general thing, they were required to serve four years, and that 
the term that I myself served before I was accepted as an able seaman. 

We have talked a great deal of measures for the upbuilding of the American mei 
marine. I know of nothing that will add zest to the shipping interest and cii 
desire in the mind of tiie growing American boy to embrace this profession than 
pa^ this bill with these good, wise provisions that are here outlined. Make the 
ditions of the sailor better and there will be more incentive for the younc men 
this country to take to the sea and in time become one of the strongest buTwarks 
our Nation. 

If I may admit, in closing, that the imdersigned drew up the amendment to 
bill, which I understand the committee has now before it for consideration, i^ 
inserting after the word "harbors,*' in the fourth line on page 16, "and all ve 
carrying passengers, exclusively enj^aged in navigating tne inland waters of 
Atlantic and Pacific coast of the United States, as now defined by lines of de 
tion from the high Beaa.** 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 85 

offering this amendment, I realized that these boundary 'm.^f or lines of de- 
ation, were rather widely drawn, but, as the bill exempted rivers and harbors, 
that ^e courts would have to pass upon the q^uestion in the different localities, 
that Puget Sound, with its bold shores, lackmg in anchorage facilities in the 
»r portion of its limits, I deemed this amendment wise, and 1 still think so, on 
unt of its general scope. 

'ealize that the position of a representative of the people in a legislative assembly 
mes is very trying, and in deliberating upon the merits or demerits of a meas- 
It is not always an easy matter to get at the truth, and my only desire in writing 
letter to you is, if I may, to give you (as before stated) ue views of a man who 
seen a few years of real service in the forecastle as well as the cabin. 

these few remarks will assist vou in any way in arriving at a just decision as 
rds the merits of this bill I shall feel amply repaid. 

listing that you and your committee can conscientiously make a favorable report 
le House, I am. 

Yours, very truly, D. Thomas Da vies. 

Thereupon, at 12 m., the hearing was adjourned until to-morrow, 
iay, April 3, 1914, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) 



FBIDAT, APB.il 3, 1914. 

Committee on Fobeign Relations, 

United States Senate, 

WasMngtoTij D. C, 
?he committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m. 

^resent: Senators Shively (acting chairman), Hitchcock, O'Gor- 
n, Williams, Swanson, romerene, Saulsbury, Lodge, Smith of 
jhigan, Root, McCumber, Sutherland, and Burton. 
The Acting Chaibman. The committee will come to order. 
Av. Alexandeb. Before we proceed, may I make this preliminary 
tement? Mr. Chairman, my report to the President, which is 
Dlished in the pamphlet here, begmning on page 75, immediately 
owing the letter oi transmittal, takes up each subject that was 
ated m the conference and explains it in detail. Tnat statement 
is on page 106. That is the report proper. But there is another 
tement, beginning on page 107 and ending on page 109, which 
iply gives a bird's-eye view of how the work m the conference was 
ae. They were both submitted to the President. The one begin- 
ig at page 107 was the one presented in the first instance, but I 
uld think it all important that the members of the committee 
»uld read the statement prepared by me, which treats of every 
)ject with great care and is made up of the reports made to me 
the members of the several committees. 
[ am ready to proceed now, Mr. Chairman. 

The Acting Chairman. Mr. Alexander, I think the committee is 
dy to hear you. 

ItTHEB STATEMENT OF HON. JOSHUA W. ALEXANDEB, A 
lEPBESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
HISSOURI. 

ifr. Alexandeb. Mr. Chairman and Senators, I think it was three 
Ts following the Titamc disaster that I prepared and introduced 
ihe House a joint resolution authorizing the President to sound the 
erent nations with a view of calling an international conference on 



86 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 



safety of life at sea. I did not have the resolution referred to vlie 
mittee of which I am chairman, the Conmiittee on Merchant 
and Fisheries, for fear that my enthusiasm migl^t influence 
conmiittee to report it without reference to the merits of the n 
lution. I had it referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs in 
House, of which Mr. Sulzer, of New York, was then chairman. It 
considered by that committee with care, reported to the House, 
passed the House. It was then referred to the committee in 
Senate, reported to the Senate, passed the Senate, and became a li 
on June 28, 1912. 

In the meantime the German Emperor had given out through 
press his purpose to call an international comerence. Later it 
announced that he would waive in favor of Great Britain, and 
a time it was definitely understood that Great Britain would call 
international conference on safety of life at sea. 

I have felt a very keen interest in this subject from the begin 
Immediately following the Titanic disaster I was flooded with 

frams and letters suggesting all sorts of devices by which futi 
isasters like that which befeU the Titanic might be avoided, 
realizing that we had very few ships in the foreign trade and that 
legislation we might enact woula essentially affect the mercanl 
marine of foreign nations, I thought the only rational way to tr( 
this subject would be by international agreement, if possible. 

With reference to n^self and my colleagues whom the Preside 
honored with commissions to the International Conference on Safe 
of Life at Sea, I wish to say this: I regret that I feel any occasion 
sav it, and I would not say it if it were not in view of the very uj 
reflections cast on us by Mr. Furuseth. I have been fighting 
Furuseth's battles ever since I have been in Congress. I came inl 
the Sixtieth Congress, and Senator Williams, who was then the 
nority leader in the House, appointed me a member of the Commit! 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries; I had not been a member of 
committee very long when I came in contact with Mr. Furuset 
He said that he wanted to improve the condition of the seamen, 
was in sympathy with his purpose, and I have helped frame all 
legislation that has been introduced in Congress since that time, 
have spent months collaborating with him and Mr. Wilson, n( 
Secretary of Labor, Mr. Hardy, and other members of my commiti 
In the Sixtv-second Congress we introduced in the House what 
known as the seamen's bill. It passed the House, went to the Senal 
afterwards passed the Senate in an amended form, and the amen< 
ments were agreed to in the House and it was pocketed by Presidi 
Taft and failed to become a law. 

Secretary Wilson and I framed the seamen's bill as it was introdut 
in the House in the present Congress. That is, we went over the foi 
bill, changing some of the features, but not changing the principles 
the bill. I introduced it in the House. Mr. Furuseth asked if 
would be objectionable to me if he might hand a copy of it to Senal 
La FoUette to introduce in the Senate. I said that it would certi 
not be. The seamen's bill never did contain a provision for Hfeboai 
for all until it was amended on the floor of the Senate in October h 

In the Sixty-second Congress, following the Titanic disaster, I 
troduced a bill in the House providing for Ufeboats for all, appUcabl 
to ocean-going vessels. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 87 

Senator Hitchcock. In the Sixty-second Congress ? 
Mr. Ajlexander. Yes; in the Sixty-second Congress. It was 
ported from my committee, passed the House, and was referred to 
le Committee on Commerce of the Senate. Senator Smith of Mich- 
an, who so ably conducted the investigation into the Titanic dis- 
iter, introduced a similar but a more comprehensive bill in the Sen- 
ie, which was also referred to the Committee on Commerce in the 
»nate. The bill which passed the House and Senator Smithes bill 
ere pending before that committee at the time it was definitely 
aderstood that an international conference on safety of life at sea 
ould be called. At the request of Senator Nelson I came to his com- 
ittee room, and in conference with him and other members of the 
wninittee we agreed'that in view of this conference that had been 
died by Great Britain it would be best for us to postpone legislation 
1 that question until after the conclusions of that conference might 
i known. For that reason I presume Senator Smith did not press 
is bill and that is the reason 1 did not press my bill. 
The President appointed the commissioners to the international 
wiference on safety of life at sea about the 1st of October last. I 
aow I had left the city before I knew I would be a member of the 
merican commission. I was very much surprised, of course, when 
came back or when I learned through the press that the Senate had 
Lcorporated in the seamen^ s bill a provision which was virtually the 
rovision of the bill which had passed the House in the last Congress 
roviding lifeboats for all, and making it apply not only to ocean 
ravel, but to the bays and sounds and the Great Lakes. 

I simply mention those facts as a very brief history of the legislative 
tuation here at the time the commissioners were appointed to the 
Iternational conference on safety of Ufe at sea. 

Just a word with relation to the viewpoint of my distinguished col- 
lagues on the commission. When we went to London we thought we 
rere representing the United States, that we were representing that 
reat body of people who go down to the sea in ships, that we should 
k) everything in our power to raise the international standard which 
fovld contribute to the greater safety of life at sea. We did not 
epresent any special interest. We had one steamship owner in our 
relegation. That was Mr. Smith, who was vice president of the New 
Tork & Cuba Mail Steamship Co. His father's life was lost at sea 
h a rotten ship. I want to say that notwithstanding his interest in 
tipping, no man in that conference tried more tlian he to raise the 
tandard of safety without regard to expense, that the purpose for 
thich we were sent to that conference might be accomplished. 

Senator McCumber. How many were in the delegation ? 

ilr. Alexander. There were 10 as originally appointed by the 
Resident, which included Senator Burton of Ohio and Senator 
netcher of Florida. I sincerely regret that the legislative program in 
ke Senate was such that it was not possible for them to go to that 
tonference. I would have been very glad if Senator La Follette and 
Senator WilUams could have gone, or any other Senators, because I 
knew, as all of us did, that our work must pass in review before the 
Senate, and it must be ratified before it could become a law, and if 
(q)resentatives from the Senate were there, they would have a better 
Ipportunity to cooperate with us, and they, after accomplishing the 
iurpose, could come back here and give you an account of then* la- 



88 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

bors. It SO happened, however, that I was the only member of 
legislative branch of the Government who was in attendance at 
conference from the beginning. 

Senator Bubton. Senator Lewis went later? 

Mr. Alexander. Yes. The committees all made their repo 
before the hoHdays ; the committee on reduction, to whom all tb 
reports were referred to be whipped into form of a convention, 
on the 5th of January, and Senator Lewis arrived there in time to 
present and participate in the work of that committee. 

Senator Hitchcock. There seems to be a little difference betw 
the make-up of our commission and those from other participati 
countries. Apparently the delegations from ttie other coimtnes i 
confined to those havmg official positions; and in addition to tb 
that have official positions in the United States we seem to have had 
representative of a labor organization, Mr. Furuseth, and also the vi 
president of the New York & Cuba Steamship Co. and the gen 
manager for the Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. 

Mr. Alexander. Yes. In other words, I think our delegation wi 
more representative of all the interests possibly than anjr others. 

While you mention that, if you will go over the personnel of the d 
gations from the 14 nations participating in that conference and the^ 
colonies of Great Britain— Canada, Australia, and New Zealand 
think you will agree with me that there is no evidence that that col 
ference was dominated by the shipping interests. I think you 
also agree with me that these were all distinguished men in their o 
country and were men who are experts and qualified to treat of t! 
subjects which were under consideration at that conference. 

I simply want to answer the objections raised by Mr. Furuseth, a: 
later I van ask each member of the delegation who was a member 
one of the committees in that conference having special subjects un 
consideration to give you a brief statement mth reference to its wo: 
Mr. Furuseth said that there were preliminary conferences betwe 
the representatives of Germany, France, and Great Britain, at whi< 
the work of this conference was matured and agreed upon and tb 
aU we had to do when we went there was to ratify their work, 
course, that is not correct. In December, 1912, Mr. Nagel, who w 
then Secretary of Commerce, requested the chairman and some of t 
members of the Committee on Commerce in the Senate, the chairm 
and some of the members of the Committee on Merchant Marine in t 
House, to meet at his office, and we did so. We found there Ml 
George E. Baker, representing the British Board of Trade, and A '- 
Mitchell Innes, and A. C. Kerr, of the British Embassy at Wash 
ington, and also General Uhler, the Chief of the Steamboat Inspectiai 
Service, aud Mr. Chamberlain, the Commissioner of Navigation, an 
the Secretary, Mr. Nagel. 

Mr. Baker came to this country and said that Great Britain h 
taken upon herself the burden of calling this conference and w 
anxious it should be a success, and, realizing the importance of 
subjects to be considered, that it would be wise that some preUmin 
work should be done; that if the several Governments should w 
until after the conference met, and then for the first time undert 
to formulate a program and work out the different subjects thi 
would come imder consideration, its sessions would be indefini 
prolonged or the work would be imperfectly done. That as German; 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 89 

I'rance, Great Britain, and the United States were the principal 
aaritime nations, it would be very helpful if they could appomt 
lelegates to a preliminary conference to agree on a tentative pro- 
gram and work out as nearlv as they could the various propositions 
X) be considered in the conierence, feeling that if they could arrive 
it a substantial agreement, being the parties having the largest 
bterests involved, that the other nations would be more disposed 
to accept our view. Following that conference, the (][uestion came 
up about Mr. Nagel having the power to name committees to con- 
sider the several subjects, safety of construction, safety of naviga- 
tion, wireless telegraphy, boats and davits, and the otner subjects 
that would be considered in that conference, and have those experts 
in these several lines meet experts from the other countries, with a 
view to working out a tentative program. 

The joint resolution passed by Congress carried an appropriation of 
$10,000 to defray the expenses of delegates to the conierence. Sena- 
tor Nelson and 1 told Mr. Nagel in our opinion that appropriation 
could not be used for the purpose of what we regarded as preliminary 
work, and hence steps were taken to secure an appropriation for 
this preUminary work. You will find the history of that matter 
in Senate Document No. 1208, Sixty-second Congress, third session, a 
letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a cop> of 
a communication from the Secretary of State, submitting an estimate 
of an urgent deficiency appropriation for subjects relatmg to safety 
of life at sea. On January 17, 1913, It was referred to the Committee 
on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. The Senate Com- 
mitt.ee considered the question of making an appropriation for that 
very purpose, t took it up also with the chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Appro] )riations in the House. This document contains 
a letter from James F. Curtis, Acting Secretary of 'State; a letter from 
Hon. P. C. Kjiox, who was the Secretary of State, also from Hon. 
Charles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce, and a joint letter from Senator 
Knute.Nelson, chairman of the Committee on Commerce of the Sen- 
ate, and myself, as chairman of the Committee on the Merchant 
Marine of the House, in which we set out what we regarded as the 
importance of making this appropriation to meet this condition. As 
I recall, the Senate committee incorpoiated an appropriation of 
$5,000 for that purpose, but in conference it was stricken out. Sec- 
retary Redfield, after he came into office, realizing: the absolute im- 
portance of having the preliminary work done, did appoint commit- 
tees made up for the most part of those in the Government service, 
because he had no money with which to pay for the services or the 
necessary expenses of those who might be employed on the outside. 

The document to which I refer is Document No. 1281, 3d session 
62d Congress, House of Representatives, and I \vill insert it in the 
record as part of my statement. 

[House Document No. 1281, Sixty-second Congress, third session.] 

Trkasury Department, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, January 16, 1913. 

The Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, cop^ 
of a communication from the Secretary of State of the 13th instant submitting an esti- 
mate of appropriation in connection with the consideration of subjects relating to 
greater security at sea, as recited in the joint resohition proposing an international 



90 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

maritime conference approved June 28, 1912 (37 Stat., 637), with a view to its inclu-i 
sion in the urgent or general deficiency bill, as follows: 

^^ Safety of life at sea. — For compensation and necessary traveling and other expenaeB 
of officers of the Government and other persons to be designated by the President tt 
consider subjects relating to greater security at sea, as recited in the joint resolution ; - 
proposing an international maritime conference approved June 28, 1912 (37 Statji ^ 
637), for necessary clerk hire in Washington, D. C, and elsewhere, and for the ex- ;_ 
penses of informal consultation with representatives of foreign Grovernments prelinh ^ 
inary to the proposed international conference, there is hereby appropriated, os^ 
of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of |10,000, cm 
much thereof as may be necessary, to be immediately available: Provided^ ThatoQr 
cers of the Government shall receive reimbursement for expenses incurred in connect ^ 
tion with this work, but no compensation in addition to the salaries attached to thefe i^ 
respective positions." 

Respectfully, j^^^^^ p ^uktis, 

Acting Secretary. 

Department of State, 
The Secretary of the Treasury. Washington, January 13, 1913. 

Sib: On June 28, 1912, the President approved a joint resolution of Congress author- 
izing him to convey to maritime nations the desire of Congress that an intemation4 
maritime conference, to consider certain subjects mentioned in the joint resolutioit, 
be held. A copy of the joint resolution is herewith inclosed. 

The object of the resolution was anticipated by the Governments of Germany and 
Great Britain and it has been agreed to hold the conference at London. 

It has been thought by the British Government that it would be of advantage if ft 
preliminary informal discussion could be arranged at an early date between represen- 
tatives of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany with regard to 
matters affecting the safety of life on ocean-going passenger steamers. 

With respect to this preliminary discussion which is to be held at London, I have 
the honor to submit herewith a copy of a letter from the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor, inclosing a copy of one addressed to him by the chairman of the Committee cm 
Commerce of the Senate and the chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and , 
Fisheries of the House of Representatives and an item of appropriation of $10,000 
**For compensation and necessary traveling and other expenses of officesr of the 
Government and other persons to be designated by the President to consider subjects 
relating to greater security at sea, as recited in the joint resolution proposing an inter* , 
national maritime conference, approved June 28, 1912 (37 Stat., 637), for necessaiy i 
clerk hire in Washington and elsewhere, and for the expenses of informal consul tati(m 
with representatives of foreign Governments preliminary to the proposed international 
conference." 

I concur in the views expressed by these gentlemen and beg to request that yon 
will submit the papers to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with a view to 
the inclusion of the item in the urgent or general deficiency bill. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

P. C. Knox. 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

WashingtoUj January 7, 191S. 
The Secretary op State, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: Referring to your letter of November 19 and other correspondence concerning 
the informal preliminary discussion by representatives of this Government and of the 
British Government, of matters to be considered at the proposed international confe^ 
ence on safety at sea, I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a letter dated the 
3d instant and signed jointly by the Hon. Knute Nelson, chairman Committee on Com- 
merce, United States Senate, and the Hon. J. W. Alexander, chairman Committee on 
the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. 

This department agrees with the view of the chairmen of the Senate and House com- 
mittees tnat it would be advisable to designate representatives of this Government for 
the purpose mentioned, and, as a necessary preliminary, to study fully at home the sub- 
jects recited in the joint resolution approved June 28, 1912. 

An estimate of an appropriation for the purpose named is inclosed herewith, with the 
request that as soon as practicable it be transmitted to Congress. 
Respectfully, 

Charles Nagel, Secretary. 



SAFETY OF UFE AT SEA. 91 

Unitbd States Senate, 

committbe on commerce, 

Janivary .5, 1913. 
'he Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 

Sir: On the 28th of June, last^ Congress passed a joint resolution, proposing an 
atematipnal maritime conference, of which resolution a copy is hereto attached. 
)n the 28th of December, last, an informal conference was held before the Secretary 
if Commerce and Labor between the Secretary and Senators Nelson, Smith, and 
Fletcher, of the Senate Committee on Commerce, and Mr. Alexander, chairman 
»f the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries ot the House of Representatives, 
he Commissioner of Navi^tion, and the Supervising Inspector General of the 
Heamboat-Inspection Service, on the one side, and ttiree representatives of the 
British Grovemment, to wit: George E. Baker, Es(|., of the British Board of Trade, 
md A. Mitchell Innes and A. C. Kerr, of the British Embassy, of Washington, on 
the other side. 

The subject of the conference related especially to the suggestion of the British 
aovemment, contained In tne letter of Hon. James Bryce, British Ambassador, 
)f Septamber 24, last, to the Secretary ot State, that an mformal preliminar>' con- 
ference or discussion be had between representatives of the British Government 
uid of the United States in reference to the subject matter of the foregoing joint 
*esolution, before holding the international maritime conference therein referred to. 

The above-named representatives of the British Government attending the con- 
ference before the Secretary, as aforesaid, indicated that they were desirous' that 
the Government of the United States should comply with the suggestiwi referred to 
In the letter of Mr. Bryce in respect to an iniormal preliminary corferenco or discus- 
don; and while Mr. Alexander and the Senators aoove referred to were favorably 
impressed with the above suggestion of the British Government, they concluded 
that before making any suggestion to the department in the matter that they would 
first confer with the members of the Committee on Commerce in the Senate and of 
the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the House of Representatives. 

And, now, having had informal conference with the members of said committees, 
we be^ leave to state to the department that it is the consensus of the members of said 
committees that it would be advisable for the Government of the United States to 
Bippoint representatives to discuss and confer informally ^dtli representatives of the 
Bntish Grovernment in respect to the matters to be considered by the international 
marine conference contemplated in the said joint resolution; and inasmuch as one 
of the important subjects to be considered would relate to the proper construction of 
ships, it would seem to be desirable that experts in the matter of ship construction 
ou^t to be among those representing the United States at such informal discussion 
or conference. 

Yours, truly, Knute Nelson, 

Chairman Committee on Commerce. 
J. W. Alexander, 
Chairman Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 

Safety of life at sea. — For compensation and necessary traveling and other expenses 
of officers of the Government and other persons to be designated by the President to 
consider subjects relating to greater security at sea, as recited in the joint resolution 
proposing an international maritime conference, approved June 28, 1912 (37 f^tat., 
637): for necessary clerk hire in Washington, D. C, and elsewhere, and for the ex- 
penses of informal consultation with representatives of foreign Governments prolim- 
inary to the proposed international conference, there is hereby appropriated, out of 
any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $10,000, or so 
much thereof as may be necessary, to be immediately availal^le: Provided, That 
officers of the Government shall receive reimbursement for expenses incurred in con- 
nection with this work, but no compensation in addition to the salaries attac^hod to 
their respective positions. 

These committees went to work at once and worked through the 
summer, and before we went to London these committees had made 
their reports, and they are embraced in these volumes. Hero 
Bndicating] is the report to the Secretary of Commerce of the com- 
mittee on aids and perils of navigation, preliminary work for the In- 
ternational Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, July 22, 1913, of which 
George F. Cooper, commander, United States Navy, hydrographer, 



92 SAFETY 0.? LIFE AT SEA. 

was president; E. P. Bertholf, Revenue-Cutter Service; G. R. Putnam, 
Commissioner of Lighthouses; A. J. Henry, professor of meteorology;: 
and E. T. Chamberlain, were members. 

Here is a report to the Secretary of Commerce of the commit 
on radiotelefflraphy, preliminary work for the International Co) 
ference on Safety at Sea, of date July 28, 1913, of which co; 
mittee E. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner of Navigation, was chai 
man, and W. H. G. Bidlard, captain. United States Navy, superi 
tendent of the Naval Radio Service; C. Mackey Saltzman, maj 
United States Army, assistant to the Chief Signal Officer; John 
Walton, constructor, Revenue-Cutter Service; and Frederick jS 
Colster, Bureau of Standards, were members. 

There is also a report to the Secretary of Commerce of the com- 
mittee on efficiency of officers and crews. International Confereni 
on Safety of Life at Sea, of which Mr. Chamberlain was president 
D. P. Foley, senior captain. United States Revenue-Cutter Servii 
Henry M. Seeley, supervisinginspector, second district, Steamboai 
Inspection Service; and J. W. ret tus,. Assistant Surgeon Gene 
PubUc Health Service, were members. 

Senator Hitchcock. Could not that matter be put into the recoi 
without reading ? 

Mr. Alexandeb. Yes. I 

(The matter referred to above is as follows:) j 

Exhibit A. 

Report to the Secretary op Commerce of the Committee on Aids and Perils 
TO Navigation — Preliminary Work for the International Conference on ■ 

Safety at Sea. 

Department of Commerce, 

Washington, July 22, 1913. !. 
The Secretary of Commerce. '^ 

Sir: The committee appointed by you to study the questions related to aids an4|- 
j>e rils to navigation and formulate a report to be referred to the International Mari*]^ 
time Conference to be held during the coming winter, has the honor to transmit i 
herewith its report, recommendations, and suggestions. 

The committee has held numerous meetings, given a great deal of study to the quee- 
tions involved, and has obtained much information and many suggestions from sea- 
faring men. 

The committee has confined its attention exclusively to aids and perils at sea, as ; 
the subject of coastal aids and perils of necessity depends upon local conditioiu in ■ 
each country. 

The committee considered a great many subjects upon which no recommendations 
nor suggestions are made, the committee believing it best not to discuss in tJie report 
any subject upon which it was not prepared to make definite recommendations or 
suggestions. The committee believes, however, it has covered by recommendatioft " 
or suggestion all essential matters. 
Very respectfully, 

George F. Cooper, 
Commander, U. S. Navy, Hydrographer, Chairman. 

E. P. Bertholf, 
Captain, Commandant, U. S. Revenue-Cutter Service. 

G. R. Putnam, 
Commissioner of Lighthouses. 
A. J. Henry, 
Professor of Meteorology, Weather Bureau. 

E. T. Chamberlain, 
Commissioner of Navigation. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 93 

Searchliohts. 

The connnittee had some diflSculty in reaching a concliifidon on this subject. Many 
safaring men object to searchlights because of their blinding effect. But the com- 
littee considers this is not a viuid objection, because, if the light is used properly, 
bis e%ct need not exist: and, in view of the very great assistance that searchlights 
aay be in the vicinity oi ice at ni^ht, and certainly will be in effecting a rescue in 
Ase of collision at night, the committee recommends as follows: 

All ocean-going steamers eauipped with dynamo or other means of venerating 
dectricity shall carry a searchlight so placed as to illumine all points of the horizon 
IB &kr as practicable, and of sufficient power to distinguish a ship's 24-foot boat at a 
listance of not less than 1 nautical mile on a clear dark night. 

Submarine Bells. 

In view of the great importance of taking every possible precaution for the safety 
Jd navigation during fog, and of the well-known difficulties which exist in connection 
irith the use of fog signals depending on sound transmitted through the air, it is desir- 
Me to make use, so far as possible, of fog signals transmitted through the water. To 
Biis end the two following rules are recommended for adoption: 

Rule 1. All light vessels on important outside stations shall be equipped with 
submarine bells. 

Rule 2. All ocean-going vessels shall be provided with means for detecting sub- 
marine-bell signals. 

The following suggestion is also submitted for consideration: The question for using 
submarine-bell signals for communication between vessels i)088e88es possibilities as a 
)^aluable future means of signaling, and should be given consideration when apparatus 
is sufficiently developed. 

Rules of the Road, 
range lights. 

The committee considers that it will be of material advantage to steamers to be able 
to determine at least approximately the course being steered by other steamers at 
idght. It therefore recommends that subdivision (e) of article 2, International Rules, 
be amended as follows: 

Change the word **inayj'' in the first sentence, to ** shall.*' The first sentence of 
para^ph («), article 2, will then read: **A steam vessel when under way shall carry 
an additional white light similar in construction to the light mentioned in subdivision 
(a)." The remainder of the subdivision should be left unchanged. 

LIGHTS FOR AN OVERTAKEN VESSEL. 

The committee believes that much confusion and some accidents will be prevented 
if all vessels be required to carry a stern light permanently, instead of being required 
to show it only when being overtaken. It sometimes happens through negligence or 
Bome peculiar conditions that the overtaken vessel fails to discover that she is being 
overti^en, and an accident results. 

The committee recommends that article 10 of the International Rules be amended 
as follows: Change the first paragraph to read as follows: **A vessel when under way 
shall carry at her stem a steady white light. '* 

In the second paragraph change the word **may " to ** shall,*' and omit the words 
"but in such case the lantern shall be." 

Add the following paragraph: 

"During bad weather, when this light on small vessels can not be fixed, it shall be 
kept at hand lighted and ready for use, and shown to a vessel approaching from the 
Btem or quarters." 

Article 10 will, under the amendments, read as follows: 

**A vessel when under way shall carry at her stern a steady white light. 

"The white light required to be shown by this article shall be fixed and carried in 
a lantern, bo constructed, fitted, and screened that it shall throw an unbroken light 




'Dunng bad weather^ when this ligfit on small vessels can not be fixed, it shall be 
kept at hand lighted and ready for use, and shown to a vessel approaching from the 
Item or quarters." 



94 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

FOG SIGNALS FOR VESSELS BEING TOWED. 

The committee recognizeB the ^t that vessels approaching or overtakiiig a tow 
be frequently confused by not knowing how many yeeselB compose the tow, or whc 
the end of the tow is. In consideration of this ^t the committee recommends tii 
the last sentence of paragraph (e) of article 15, International Rules, be stricken o^ 
and the following suDstituted: 

'*The last vessel of any tow shall, at intervals of not more than two minutes, soi 
four blasts in succession, namely, one prolonged blast followed by three short bliutB. 

ICEBERG REGION. 

1. In view of the fact that, unless required to slow in the vicinity of ice at 
vessels will hold their speed, thereby increasing the chances of disaster, the commit 
recommends that the following amendment be inserted in article 16 of the Intei 
tional Rules, after the word * * storms " : "or when navigating in the vicinity of icebe 
or ice floes during darkness/' 

The article wifl then read as follows: 

''Art. 16. Every vessel shall, in a fog, mist, falling snow, or heavy rain storms, 
when navigating in the vicinity of icebeigs or ice floes during darkness, so at a mc 
erate^eed, having careful regard to the existing circumstances and conaitions." 

2. Tne committee is of the opinion that whatever signals are specified in the Int 
national Rules to be used by a vessel in distress for the purpose of indicating 
requires assistance should be used for that purpose alone and that the Intematioi 
Rules should prohibit the use of the specified distress signals for any other pi 
whatever. 

The committee therefore recommends the following amendment to the first ps 
graph of article 31 of the International Rules immediately after the word "separatelj 
"'These signals may be used only when a vessel is in danger or distress, and 
be used for no other purposes wliatever. No signals for other purposes which may hi 
mistaken for the following distress signals shall be used.*' 

The first paragraph would then rejui: 

"Art. 31. When a vessel is in distress and requires assistance from other vessels of 
from the shore the following shall be the signals to be used or displayed by her, eithei 
together or separately. These signals may be used only when a vessel is in danger 
or distress, and shall be used for no other purpose whatever. No signals for otfaej 
piurposes which may be mistaken for the following distress signals shall be useiit, 
namely:" 

3. AB the third para^ph of article 31 includes among the night signals of distreifc 
rockets or shells throwing stars of any color or description, the proposed amendment 
would prevent naval vessels from usin^ such rockets or shells for ordinary signal pu^ 
poses. It is realized that such prohibition would unduly restrict the signal systeiM 
of the several navies and thereby cause considerable inconvenience, and the commit 
tee therefore suggests that" the single color of red be reserved for distress rockets, and 
recommends that paragraph 3 of article 31 be amended to read as follows: 

"At night— 

"Thirf Rockets or shells throwing red stars of any description, fired one at a tinift 
at short intervals." 

Reporting and Disseminating Information Relating to Aids and Perils tc 

Navigation. 

collection op weather reports by radio service from oceanic areas. 

It is the sense of this committee that the application of radiotelegraphy to the col 
lection of weather reports from oceanic areas gives promise of securing to navigatoB 
agreater measure of ^fety from the perils of the sea than has hitherto been possible 
The committee also believes that the ultimate object of any future extension of radio 
telegraphy in connection with weather information should be toward the perfectioi 
of a system of weather reports and warnings for the larger oceanic areas, which area 
should be, so far as practicable, coterminous with the great lines of ocean travel 
Su<^ a service necessarily would be international in character, the expense of wHicl 
riiould be shared jointly oy the nations most directly concerned. 

In th^ meantime much important preliminary work looking to that end can be dotu 
by individual meteorological services, especially of those countries having marin 
boundaries. The ccmimittee would point out the necessity for the assignment to som 
central authority of the duty of supervising the work of observers at sea with a view c 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 96 

curing uniform methods and comparable results. The committee believes that a 
'Stem of collecting meteorological observations from vessels at sea must be built up 
owly through cooperation with vessel masters and owners, and that so far as possible 
le work should be on a cooperative basis. Each meteorological service mi^t take 
> itself the special problem of developing an eflBcient radiometeorological service for 
lie coastal waters which fall within its sphere of influence; thus, the United States 
leather Bureau has made arrangements to collect observations from the Gulf of Mexico 
nd the Caribbean Sea, and proposes to issue w^amings to vessels navigating those 
witers. 

\Mien the work is more systematically organized than at present it will be possible 
D attempt to extend the field of observations and warnings farther and farther from 
and and thus gradually to extend to mid-ocean. The committee is of the opinion, 
lowever, that the present is not an opportime time to attempt to extend the work 
beyond that permitted by present construction and installation of apparatus. 

The exi>erience of the Weather Bureau of the United States Department of Agri- 
mlture in the collection of weather reports from the Gulf of Mexico, tne Caribbean Sea, 
ind the waters along the coast of the South Atlantic States may be instructive. In the 
beginning vessels plying between West Indian and Central American ports and Boston, 
Mew York, and New Orleans were appointed to make weather reports at stated hours 
twice daily, and to forward them by radio service to the nearest land station, whence 
they were forwarded to Washington by land lines. At this time the commercial radio 
^mpanies cooperated in the work and remitted the tolls on meteorological radiograms 
feom ships to shore, the land-line tolls being borne by the Weather Bureau. On July 1, 
1913, the remission of tolls from ship to shore ceased, and the entire financial support 
feu upon the Weather Bureau. It became evident at once that the service was organ- 
ized on too' broad a basis, that the added cost of relaying radiograms from the more 
remote parts of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea would make the service as 
tiien organized prohibitive. From the present outlook, in order to bring the service 
irithin the limits of the appropriations, it will be necessary to abandon the original 
program of twice-daily observations in favor of a single observation, and probably to 
Confine the lattei? to certain definite areas and weather conditions. 

The conunittee is therefore of the opinion that the collection of weather reports 
by radio service must be relieved of the financial burden that attaches to it under 
present regulations before success is possible. 

Recommendations : 

Q) The committee recommends in the interests of the future development of 
taciio-meteorolc^cal services that the existing meteorological service of each adminis- 
tration adopt as part of its program tne organization of a radio service for the coastal 
waters pertaining to that aaministration. 

(2j) Tne comnuttee realizes that the question of tariffs on weather radiograms was 
not included in the program submitted to it for discussion; nevertJieless, it desires to 
point out that upon the decision as regards tariffs, whether meteorological radiograms 
ihall be transmitted free or at a nominal rate, hinges success or failure in any attempt 
to organize on broad lines a system of weather reporting by radio service. 

In the event of any discussion of the matter the committee recommends a con- 
ftderation of the following proposition looking to a reduction of the number of meteoro- 
logical radiograms to a mmimum and yet securing from said radiograms valuable 
mformation. The proposition is that meteorological observations be made at Green- 
"wich noon whenever a vessel during the preceding four hours has experienced a 
Iwrometer reading below 30 inches and falling continuously or has discovered other 
tymptoms of approaching storm, said observations should include a reading of the 
ifarometer, wind direction, and force three hours previous to the time of taking the 
noon observation. Such a practice would not overburden radio installations with 
weather radiograms, and if uniformly carried out would add greatly to the efficiency 
of a warning service for oceanic and adjoining land areas. If radiograms of this 
diaracter can not be carried free, the committee would suggest that a nominal rate 
be charged for them, the expense to be borne by the countries to which the radio- 
grams are forwarded, 

ThsLt class of meteorological information which transcends all others as regards its 
value to shipping is the storm or hurricane warning, particularly the latter. The 
oceanic areas oest adapted to a profitable distribution of storm warnings by radio- 
tdegraphy are the coastal waters of the continents and the waters contiguous to the 
iriaaids in subtropical watei^. Fortunately, too, those storms most disastrous to ship- 
pmg, the hunicanes of tJie West Indies and the typhoons of the Far East, have their 
9igiii in subtropical waters and often pursue a course not far distant from the conti- 
nental areas; it should not, therefore, be a difficult matter to ultimately provide a 
igFBtem of warnings for these destructive storms which shall be little, if any, inferior 
to the system of warnings for storms which pass over the land. 



96 :5AFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Your committee considers the warmn|g service mentioned in the preceding 
graph as promising more beneficial results than the project of distributing 
to vessels in mid-ocean, and therefore begs to emphasize the importance of coi 
trating all means at the command of meteorological services on the development! 
an efficiet warning service for coastal and subtropical waters. 

Since July 15, 1911, the central meteorological bureau of France has sent broj 
from ^e Eiffel Tower daily weather reports from five points along the west coast 
Europe and from St. Pierre, Miquelon Island. 

On July 15, 1913, the naval radio service of the Navy Department b^an to bi«, 
cast daily from Radio, Va., and Key West, Fla., weather reports from six points aid 
the eastern coast of North America, including Bermuda and Pensacola, thus creati 
a service for the eastern coast of North America and the Gulf of Mexico similar 
that provided for the west coast of Europe. The service by naval radio also inch 
a special wind forecast for the Gulf and Atlantic coast and warnings of severe at 
which may occur in the Caribbean Sea, the Gulf of Mexico^ or along the eastern 
of the United States. Thus there is provided for the shipmasters approaching 
eastern coast of North America or entering the Gulf of Mexico from the east rej 
the actual weather conditions in those regions, with a forecast of the win< 
distance offshore expected within the next 48 hours. 

A similar service is available to vessels approaching the west coast of the Unil 
States. 

The committee considers the dissemination of meteorological information as 
lined in the above paragraphs as an administrative detail which &lls clearly wit 
the province of each meteorological service ; it has therefore no recommendations ' 
offer. 

TIME SIGNALS. 

The United States Naval Observatory has developed a time service by radio wl 
has proved of great value to shipping, and the Hydrograj)hic Office has recei^ 
numerous testimonials from shipmasters as to the value of this service. Appendix 
gives the details of this service, and the committee invites the attention oi the 
ference to this service and recommends a consideration of the desirability of requ( 
all Governments to establish a like service. 

ICE AND DERELICT REPORTS. 

These reports are collected in the United States principally by the Hydrogra| 
Office of the Navy Department, and it is believed that the system is an excellent oi 
Vessels are requested to send important reports by radio to the Hydrographic 
which at once transmits them to several coast radio stations to be sent broadcast j 
certain hours during the day, depending upon conditions. In addition, the hi 
power station at Arlington broadcasts them at 10 p. m. The Hydrographic 
also places these reports on its daily memorandum, which is sent to its branch of 
in the important ports, and all vessels have access to these. 

The reports of derelicts received by the Hydrographic Office are given immediat 
to the Revenue-Cutter Service. Many of these reports are received by the bi 
hydrographic offices, which have authority to broadcast them by radio and give the 
at once to the senior revenue-cutter officer. In addition, reports sometimes go 
to the Revenue-Cutter Service, and in such cases are given to the Hydrograpl 
Office to be broadcasted. ;^ 

The committee recommends the consideration by the conference of tlie establi^ 
ment of like systems in all maritime countries so far as possible. 

Many of the ice reports come to the HydroCTaphic Office relayed through commerdll 
shore stations, and the tolls are sometimes heavy. The committee suggests the coa« 
sideration of the feasibility of having the commercial radio companies transmit 
sages concerning ice and derelicts free, or at a nominal toll. These messages are 
only for the purpose of safety at sea, and all maritime nations are vitally inters 
in them. 

LANE ROUTES FOR TRANSATLANTIC STEAMSHIPS. 

For many years the important steamship lines traversing the North Atlantic Ocetfj 
between New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and the ports of Europe have 8||^bm| 
among themselves that their vessels should hold to certain prescribed lanes. This M 
an excellent plan and should be broadened by making the steamship lanes absoluteqj 
obligatory to steamships. Governments should pass legislation requiring the stean^ 
ships imder their respective flags to adhere strictly to steamship lanes prescribed b| 




SAFETY OlP LIFE AT SEA. 97 

lem. These lanes should be agreed upon in the International Conference. The 
ommittee, therefore, recommends that the conference take up the question of these 
mes and prescribe lanes to be followed. The committee presents for the consideraf 
ion of the conference the lanes shown on the accompanying chart [not printed] and 
[escribed in Appendix B. These lanes were suggested by Capt. J. C. Jamison of the 
ntemational Mercantile Marine Co., a seaman of great ability and long experience 
n navigating large vessels over the North Atlantic. 

ICE PATROL. 

In order to assist in safeguarding life and property at sea, and, as far as possible, to 
eliminate the danger of collision with icebergs, the committee believes it is neceesary 
c dispatch suitable ships to cruise in the iceberg region of the North Atlantic during 
iie season of danger for the purpose of locating the bergs and giving warning of theii' 
iresence to trans- Atlantic shippmg. 

During the spring of 1912 the United States detailed two vessels to render this impor* 
ant service to shipping. During the spring of 1913 the United States again detailed 
;wo vessels to maintain a patrol of the ice regions, and Great Britain fitted out one vessel 
Sor the same purpose. But while tiiis is a national duty and should be undertaken 
3y the General Government, the committee believes that the expense involved should 
lot fall upon one or two nations only, but should be distributed among the several 
tnaritime nations whose ships are engaged in the north trans- Atlantic trade. 

It is therefore recommended that an international ice patrol be established and 
that the annual responsibility and expense of maintaining this patrol be assumed 
by each of the several maritime nations in turn, the patrol to be conducted in accord- 
ance with a general plan to be formulated and agreea to by the representatives of the 
Kveral maritime nations concerned at the international conference. The following 
j^an is proposed: 

(1) Tne ice patrol shall be^n April 1 of each year and continue until the ice no longer 
concrititutes a menace to navigation in the zone of the trans-Atlantic steamship lanes. 

(2) At all times during the continuance of the patrol there must be at least one 
vessel present in the iceberg region. 

(3) The object of the patrol is to locate the icebergs and field ice nearest to the 
trans-Atlantic steamship lanes. It will be the duty of the patrol vessels to determine 
flie southerly, easterly, and westerly limits of the ice, and to keep in touch with these 
fields as they move southward, in order that radio messages may be sent out daily 
giving the whereabouts of the ice, particularly the ice that may be in the immediate 
Ticimty ot the regular trans- Atlantic lanes. 

(4) Having located the ice, the patrol vessel will send the following daily radio- 
giams. All times in radiograms will be in seven t}r-fifth meridian time. 

(a) At 6 p. m. (seventh-fifth meridian time) ice information will be sent broadcast 
for me benefit of vessels, using 600-meter wave length. This message will be sent 
three times with an interval of two minutes between each. 

(6) At 6.15 p. m. (seventy-fifth meridian time) the same information will be sent 
broadcast in similar manner, using 300-meter wave length. 

(c) The same procedure outlined in (a) and (b) will be repeated at 6 a. m. and 6.15 
t. m. (seventy-mth meridian time). 

(d) At 4 a. m. (seventy-fifth meridian time) a radiogram will be sent to the branch 
hydrographic office, New York City, defining the ice danger zone, its southern 
Kinits, or other definite news. 

(e) Ice information will be given at any time to any ship with which the ice-patrol 
veesel can communicate. 

(f) Ice information will be given in as plain, concise English as practicable, and 
wiD state in the following order: Ice (berg or field); date; time (seventy -fifth meridian 
.time); latitude; longitude; other data as may be necessary. 

(5) All expense involved in the daily radiogram to the oranch Hydrographic Office 
at New York City will be borne by the United States. 

(6) The brancn Hydrographic Office will repeat this daily radiogram by cable tc> 
the designated official of any nation that desires the ice information, the cost of the 
cable service to be borne by the respective nations requesting it. 

(7) All vessels which sight icebergs or ice fields will at once notify the patrol vessel 
ly radio. 

(8) A copy of all written reports upon ice conditions made by the ice-patrol vessels 
mil be forwarded, as soon as possible, to each of the nations that shall join in; the 
eitablifiliment of the patrol. 

38444—14 7 



98 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 



REMOVAL OF DERELICTS. 



The subject of derelicts and other obstructions to navigation was considered by the 
International Marine Conference at Washington in 1889, and the conclusion and 
recommendation of the conference was, briefly, as follows: 

"That derelicts in the North Atlantic were so frequently met with, eCT>ecially in 
the waters bordering on the North American coast westward of a line drawn from 
the Bermuda Islands to Cape Race, that they constitute a serious danger, and that 
action should be taken by international agreement for the destruction or removal of 
euch derelicts." 

No action was taken by any of the maritime nations to carry this recommendati(m 
into effect until May 12, 1906, when the Congress of the United States passed the 
following act: 

**That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to have constructed, at a 
cost not to exceed two himdred and fifty thousand dollars, a steam vessel specially 
fitted for and adapted to service at sea in bad weather, for the purpose of blowing up 
or otherwise destroying or towing into port wrecks, derelicts, and other floating da^eca 
%a navigation, saia vessel to be operated and maintained by the Revenue-Cutter? 
Service under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe." 

Accordingly, the revenue cutter Seneca was built and placed in commission as a : 
^'derelict destroyer" in November, 1908, and since that time a systematic search foe ■ 
derelicts has been conducted by the United States Revenue-Cutter Service. Birtj 
while the Seneca is employed almost exclusively in derelict operations, there aie 
nine other seagoing cutters stationed along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Floridii 
which aid in this duty when the reported derelict or other obstruction is nearer to 
their respective stations, or whenever it is more expedient to have them perform the 
work instead of the Seneca. Each of these nine vessels has a certain section of the ^ 
coast assigned to her as a cruising station, and the limits of adjacent stations overlap, 1 

Information regarding the discovery and location of derelicts is furni^ed to tne -^ 
United States Revenue-Cutter Service and to the Hydrographic Office at Washingtoa ' 
and its branch offices located at the principal seaports, by the maritime exchanges, I 
and by individual vessels of the mercantile marine. All seagoing revenue cutten ^ 
are equipped with radio apparatus, and radio information concerning derelicts received 
by the cutters from merchant vessels at sea has greatly facilitated the work of locating 
these floating dangers. There has been and is a hearty cooperation from all branches 
of the Government, from maritime organizations, from steamship lines and individual 
vessels, and from all persons interested in coastwise and foreign shipping. Informa- 
tion regarding derelicts is sent out to all persons interested flirough the medium of | 
the Hydrographic Office bulletins and charts and through the columns devoted to i 
flipping news in the leading newspapers. ; 

In the North Atlantic Ocean, during the five years ended June 30, 1913, the reve- 1 
Bue cutters, including the Seneca^ have removed 140 obstructions to navigation, of \ 
which 24 were derelict ships and the remainder sunken wrecks or floating wreckage* I 
Any of these obstructions was capable of inflicting serious damage if struck by a ■ 
passing ship. The following is a summary of these operations: 



Date. 



IW9 

mo 

mt 

1912 

1913 

Total 



Derelicts. 



Recovered 

or taken 

into port. 



2 
6 
2 
11 
3 



24 



Destroyed. 



1 
1 
1 
1 
5 



9 



Sunken 
wrecks de- 
stroyed. 



6 
3 
3 
9 
5 



26 



Floating 
wreckage 



removed or 
destroyed. 



16 
13 
12 
23 
17 



81 



Total. 



» 
33 
IS 
44 
SO 



140 



Although some of the derelicts in the North Atlantic are of foreign origin, most ol 
them are American vessels which have been abandoned on the coast of the United 
States during bad weather. These derelicts drift north and east in the Gulf Stream, 
and were it not for the fact that the United States Government provides the means 
for removing or destroying them a large number of these floating menaces to naviga- 
tion would eventually be carried away from the United States coast into mid-ocean, 
to become a serious and constant danger to trans- Atlantic shipping. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 99 

In this connection it is worthy of note that in July, 1912, the British Board of Trade 
appointed a committee to inquire into this matter of derelicts. The report of the 
committee, submitted January 21, 1913, contains the following conclusions and recom- 
mendations: 

"(i) The provision of special means for the destruction and removal of derelicts on 
the western side of the North Atlantic is absolutely necessary, owing to the peculiar 
conditions which prevail on that coast, and the work whi(?h at present is so efficiently 
performed by the United States cruisers should, in any case, be continued, even if it 
were to involve the cooperation of other nations in the provision of Uie necessary fimds. 
" (J) The provision of a special vessel for the purpose of destroying or removing dere- 
licts to the eastward of the area patrolled by the American cruisers would not be justi- 
fied, so long as the continuance of the work performed by these cruisers is assured." 
One member of the committee, however, submitted me following minority report: 
"I am strongly of the opinion that it would be a greater protection to British shipping 
if a special naval vessel were stationed at Halifax as a base, ready to proceed to sea 
upon receipt of information as to the position of a derelict, and tibat it should be the 
special duty of such vessel to take immediate steps to search for derelicts when 
reported." 

While the Government of the United States undertakes the work of removing dere- 
Ucts primarily for the protection of its own coastwise shipping, nevertheless tMs action 
on the part of the United States results in material benefit to trans> Atlantic shipping 
also,^ and the committee is of the opinion that, in consideration of this fact, Uie several 
maritime nations should undertake to remove or destroy such of the derelicts that 
escape the vi^lant search of the revenue cutters and drift beyond a reasonable distance 
from the United States coast. 

The committee therefore recommends that an endeavor be made to reach an agree- 
ment with the several maritime nations interested in the trans- Atlantic trade, as 
follows: 

(a) The United States to continue the destruction or removal of derelicts in the 
Norui Atlantic west of a line drawn from Cape Sable to latitude 34° longitude 70° 
and thence to the Bahamas. 

(b) The other maritime nations to maintain a suitable vessel or vessels for the pur- 
pose of destroying or removing derelicts east of said line. 

George F. Cooper, 
Commander, U. S. Navy, Hydrographer, Chairman. 

E. P. Bertholp, 
Captain, Commandant, U. S. Revenue-Cutter Service. 

G. R. Putnam, 
Commissioner of Lighthouses. 
A. J. Henry, 
Professor of Meteorology, Weather Bureau, 

I a^ee with the report, except that I am not persuaded of the propriety of the pro- 
posed rule to require ocean steamers to carrjr searchlights, and 1 question me proposed 
change in tiie International Rules which will prescribe a fixed stem light. 

E. T. Chamberlain, 
Commissioner of Navigation. 



APPENDIXES. 

[Appendix A.] 

The United States naval radio service is furnishing information to vessels at sea, 
as follows: 

TIME SIGNALS. 

The following radio stations send out time signals broadcast between 11.55 a. m. 
and noon every day, except Sundays and holidays, for the determination of chro- 
nometer errors, and hence time and longitude at sea: Boston, Newport, New York. 
Norfolk, Charleston, St. Augustine, Key West, and New Orleans on the Atlantic and 
Gulf coasts; Table Bluff, North Head, Mare Island, and Point Loma on the Pacific 

coast. 

It is proposed to extend this service to the radio stations at Guantanamo, Colon, 
and Tatoosh Island, ]i necessary arrangements can be made. 

The signals are sent from the Naval Observatory, Washington, for the Atlantic 
coast between 11.55 a. m. and noon of the seventy-fifth meridian west of Greenwich, 
and from the observatory at the Mare Island navy yard between 11.65 a. m. ana 



100 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

noon of the one hundred and twentieth meridian west of Greenwich for the Pacific 
coast. 

In addition to the above signals, the station at Arlington, Va., sends the time signal 
between 11.55 a. m. and noon, and 9.55 p. m. and 10 p. m., every day in the year. 

Mare Island also sends the time signal between 9.55 p. m. and 10 p. m. every night. 

The wave lengths used are: For all Atlantic coast stations, 1,000 meters; for Arlington 
and Mare Island, 2,500 meters; San Diego and North Head, 2,000 meters; Eurekft, 
1,400 meters; Point Arguello, 1,000 meters. 

The radio sending or relay key in each radio station is connected to the Western 
Union lines by a relay at about 11.50 a. m., and the signals are made automatically 
direct from Washington or Mare Island. 

Time signals from each of the observatories mentioned begin at 11.55 a. m. (or 9.55 
p. m.)) standard time, and continue for 5 minutes. During this interval every tick 
of the clock is transmitted, except the twenty-ninth second of each minute, the last 
5 seconds of each of the first 4 minutes, and finally the last 10 seconds of the last 
minute. The noon (and 10 p.' m.) signal is a longer contact after this longer break. 

It is not necessary that an elaborate radio installation be employed f^ the purpose 
of receiving these signals nor that a skilled operator be in attendance. Any vessel 
provided with a small receiving apparatus with one or two wires hoisted as high as pos- 
sible and insulated from a'll metal fittings or preferably stretched between Sie nuist- 
heads with one wire led down to the receiver may detect these signals when wiUiin 
range of one of the seacoast radio stations. 

These time signals have been used successfully by vessels for rating their chro- 
nometers and have been used by surveying vessels in the accurate determination dt 
longitudes. 

[Appendix B.] 

U. S. M. S. "St. Louis," 

August 2, 1912. 

Pkoposed Steamship Tracks Between the English and St. Georges Ghak- 

NELS AND New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. 

Icebergs may be expected on the northern track at all seasons. 

NEW YORK TRACK. 

January 1 to March 1. — Cross 47° W. westbound at 41° N., then to Nantucket L. V., 
thence to Ambrose Channel L. V. Cross 47° W. eastbound at 40° N., then Great 
Circle to Fastnet or Bishops. 

March 1 to July 15.— Cross 46° W. to 50° W. westbound on 40° N., then to Nantucket 
Light Vessel, thence to Ambrose Channel Light Vessel. Cross 50° W. to 45° W. east- 
bound on 39° N., then Great Circle to Fastnet or Bishops. 

July 15 to September 1. — Cross 47° W. westbound on 41° N., thence to Nantucket 
Light Vessel, thence to Ambrose C. L. V. Cross 47° W. eastbound on 40° N., then 
Great Circle to Fastnet or Bishops. 

September 1 to January 1. — Cross 50° W. westbound 43° N., then to Nantucket Light 
Vessel, thence to Ambrose Channel L. V. Cross 50° W. eastbound 42° N. Great Circle 
to Fastnet or Bishops. 

During exceptional ice seasons, or if ice is reported on the "above tracks, or for other 
reasons, instruct commanders to use their discretion as to going south of tracks to 
avoid it. 

By taking the above tracks fog and fishermen will be avoided, and ice only seen 
in exceptional years; then steamers should take the extreme southern track, viz: 

Cross westbound 46° W. on 38° 20^ N. to 50° W., then to 40° 28^ N. and 70° W., 
thence to Ambrose Channel L. V. 

Cross eastbound 50° W. on 37° 40^ N. to 45° W., then Great Circle to Fastnet or 
Bishops. 

By so doing the east and west tracks will not run so close together as the old ones. 

By taking these tracks there will not be any delay through slowing in fog, risk 
of collision will be reduced, and the fierce winter storms of snow and intense cold 
on the Banks avoided, when the steamers are frequently heavily coated with ice^ 
the lifeboats with their davits and falls hummocks of ice, and the crews so numbed 
with the cold as to be practically helpless. 

We should also escape the heavy breaking seas on the Banks which so often damage 
the ship's deck fittings, and the passenger's trip would be made a pleasure instead of a 
voyage of suffering and terror. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 



101 



Leaving New York, croes 70° \V. on 39° 5(y N., all seasons. 

Boston ships join and leave the track on 50° W. 

Philadelphia ships westbound, keep New York track to Nantucket Light Veeael, 
tience to Cape May Light Vessel, except on the extreme southern track, then west- 
►ound from 38° 20'' N. and 50° W. to Cape May Light Vessel; by so doing they will 
void the strength of the Gulf Stream. 

Philadelphia ships eastbound join New York track on 50° W. at all seasons. 

J. C. Jamison, Commanding. 



U. S. M. S. "St. Louis,'' 

New YorJty September 1, 1912. 
Commander George G. Cooper, U. S. N., 

E^drographeTj Hydrographic Office, Washington, D. C. 

Sir: Your letter of August 9 re Atlantic steamship tracks was only received by 
me at the point of sailing on the morning of August 10, which will explain my delay 
in acknowlec^ing. 

I am pleased to know you think my suggested tracks have some advantages, and 
that you are willing to assist me in getting the steamship lines to adopt safer tracks. 

I had expected me objections you make to the number of tracks I have offered, 
and had prepared a track somewhat as you suggested. 

From January 1 to September 1. — Westbound, cross 47° W. to 50° W. on 41° N., 
then to Nantucket Light Vessel, thence to Ambrose Channel L. V. Eastbound, crose 
70° on 39° 50^ N., then to 47° W. on 40° N., thence Great Circle to Fastnet or Bishops. 

These tracks are 60 miles south at 47° W. of the present tracks taken by the lines 
from January 15 to August 15, and about 34 miles longer from the Bishops on the 
vestbound track and 42 miles longer on the eastbound track, which is very little 
nrhen one considers the greater safety. 

I have never felt there was a season when one was sure of being free from ice, ae 
I have met it every month of the year on the northern track, on and to the eastward 
of the Grand Banks, and 1 stlH think steamers should take Lieut. Maury's old tracks 
from September 1 to January 1, crossing 50° W. on 43° N. westbound, and crossinfi" 
50° W. on 42° N. eastbound; the distance is about 47 miles longer than the standard 
tracks westbound and about 60 miles longer eastbound. The longer distance on the 
^tbound track would be somewhat offset by avoiding the W. S. W. current from 
Nantucket to the eastern edge of the Grand Banks on the standard tra^k, and having 
& set to the eastward from what Gulf Stream might be found on my sug^ted track. 

There would seldom be delay from slowing for fog or heavy snow, "vmich fremiently 
lappens on the present northern track, eastbound. From New York to 70° W. the 
xrest and eastbound tracks run too close, as steamers often approach the coast having 
im two or three days without observation, and if they fall to, me southward meet the 
eastbound vessels, so I suggest eastboimd cross 70° W. at 39° 50^ N. at all seasons. 

distances on standard and suggested tracks. 



Standard. 

LUgust 15 to January 15: Miles. 

Bishops to A. C. L. Vessel 2, 853 

A. C. L. Vessel to Bishopfi 2, 880 

anuary 15 to August 15: 

Bishops to A. C. L. Vessel 2, 950 

A. C. L. Vessel to Bishops 2, 990 



Suggested. 

September 1 to January 1: 

Bishops to A. C. L. Miles. 

Vessel 2,900 

A. C. L. Vessel to 

Bishops 2,940 

January 1 to September 1: 
Bishops to A. C. L. 

Vessel 2,984 

A. C. L. Vessel to 

Bishops 3,032 



Maes 
longer. 

47 
60 



34 
42 



I trust that the present tracks I propose will meet with your approval, and if they 
that you will present them to the different lines, as I know they will receive more 
^t^ition coining from your office than from me, not that 1 wish to avoid the 
eponsibinty. 

Respectfully, yours, J. C. Jamison, Commanding. 



102 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Exhibit B. 

Befort to the Secretary of Commerce of the Committee on Radioteleg- 
RAPHY — Preliminary Work for the International Conference on Safety 
AT Sea. 

Department of Commerce, 

Washingtony July 28 ^ 191S. 
To Hon. William C. Rbdfield, 

Secretary of Commerce. 

Sir: The committee on radio telegraphy submits the following report for the consid- 
eration of the Secretary of Commerce in the preparation of data for the use of the dele- 
gates of tJie United States to the International Conference on Safety at Sea. 

The conmiittee organized May 8, 1913, has held five meetings, and has considered 
the legislation and treaties of the United States and, as far as possible, of other nations 
on the subject of radiocommunication. It submitted the attached letter of inqiury to 
the wireless companies organized in the United States and to representatives of the 
principal American steamship companies. The letter did not elicit the number of 
replies anticipated, but this may be attributed in part to the fact that the suggestions 
of the committee in the main are already included m acts of Congress which have been 
in reasonably successful operation for some time. 

The committee recommends: 

1. That efficient apparatus for radiocommunication be required on all ships in 
foreign trade which carry 50 persons or more (passengers or crew, or both combined), 
navigating the ocean between ports more than 200 nautical miles distant from one 
another. 

The requirement for such installations on ships carrying 50 or more persons, passen- 
gers or crew, or both, is to be found in the act of Congress of July 23, 1912, in section 
236 of the navigation act of the Parliament of the Australian Commonwealth, and in 
the act of June 6, 1913, of the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada. The draft of the 
wireless telegraphy bill of February 1, 1913, which the^committee understands awaits 
introduction in the British Parliament with the support of the British Government, 
contains substantially the same requirement in the fifth section, prescribing such 
apparatus on (a) a ship of 4,500 tons gross or over or (6) a ship which carries 60 or more 
persons. 

The recommendation is restricted to vessels in the foreign trade, as the committee 
imderstands that every nation reserves to itself the regulation of its coastwise trade 
and that the international conference will not consider matters relating to that trade. 
The exemption from the obligation to carry apparatus for radiocommunication of 
ships on routes between ports less than 200 miles distant is taken from the act of 
the Congress of the United States and was designed to cover practically all voyage* 
in foreign trade from American ports except on the Great Lakes, where navigatioa 
for generations has been subject to special regulations. The committee recognizes 
that the distances by sea between the ports of various nations of Europe are frequently 
less than 200 miles, and it is disposed to beheve that the minimum limit of 200 nau- 
tical miles with propriety might be reduced to 100 or 150 miles. The minimum dis- 
tance, however, concerns principally the maritime powers of Europe. 

2. That apparatus, to be deemed efficient, must transmit messages with sufficient 
power to be received by day over sea at a distance of at least 100 nautical miles by * 
ship equipped with apparatus equal to that of the transmitting ship. 

The minimum range of 100 nautical miles prescribed for efficient apparatus is tha 
standard adopted in the laws of the United States, Dominion of Canada, and Aus^ 
traUan Commonwealth already mentioned, and is recommended in the report of th© 
British merchant shipping advisory committee (p. 31). 

3. That an auxiUary power supply should be provided, independent of the vessel'* 
main electric power plant, which will enable the sending set for at least four hour* 
to send messages over a distance of at least 100 nautical miles hy day. 

The committee is not unmindful of the requirements of Article Xl of the service 
regulations of the London Radiotelegraphic Convention, which prescribes: 

"* Ships provided with radio instiillations and classed under the first two categories 
indicated in Article XIII are bound to have radio installations for distress calls, all 
the elements of which shall be kept under conditions of the greatest possible safety, 
to be determined by the Government issuing the license. Such emergency installa- 
tions shall have their own source of energy, be capable of quickly being set into oper- 
ation, of functioning for at least six hours, and have a minimum range of 80 nautical 
miles for ships of the first category and 50 miles for those of the second. Such emer- 



SAFETY OP UPB AT SEA. 103 

. 

;ency installation shall not be required in the case of vessels the r^iular installations 
>f which fulfill the requirements of the present article.'* 

The regulation proposed is not in conflict with the international requirement, 
but increases to 100 miles from 80 to 50 miles, respectively, the minimum range oi 
auxiliary apparatus. The auxiliary apparatus is designea primarily for use by a 
vessel in distress with her main engine disabled. In mis situation radiotelegraphy 
may serve its most important purpose as an instrumentality for safety at sea, and 
the committee believes that in sucn a situation the radius of axjtion of the apparatus 
cught not to be reduced below 100 nautical miles^ which is recognized as the minimum 
range of efficient apparatus under normal conditions. The international r^:u]ation 
fixes the minimum period of endurance of the auxiliary apparatus at six hours, and 
the committee is not opposed to that minimum, provided the minimum radius bo 
100 nautical miles. 

4. That (a) two first-grade operators should be required on all such ships maintaining 
a constant service, also on all such ships carrying 100 or more passengers. 

(6) One first-grade and another first or second grade operator should be required 
en all other such passenger ships. 

(c) One operator (first or second grade) and one cargo operator or watcher should 
l)erec[uired on all such cargo boats. 

Article X of the service regulations of the London Radiotel^raphic Convention 
prescribes: 

"1. The service of the station on shipboard shall be carried on by a telegraph operator 
lolding a certificate issued by the Government to which the vessel is subject, or, in 
case of necessity and for one voyage only, by some other adhering Government. 
"2. There shall be two classes of certificates: 

"The first-class certificate shall attest the professional efficiency of the operator as 
regards — 

(a) Adjustment of the apparatus and knowledge of its functioniDg; 
"(6) Transmission and acoustic reception at the rate of not less than 20 words a 
minute; 
"(c) Knowledge of the regulations governing the exchange of radio correspondence 
"The second-class certificate may be issued to operators who are able to transmit and 
receive at a rate of only 12 to 19 words a minute, out who, in other respects, fulfill the 
requirements mentioned above. Operators holding second-class certificates may be 
permitted on — 

"(a) Vessels which use radiotelegraphy only in their own service and in the corre- 
flpondence of their crews, fishing vessels in particular; 

"(6) All vessels, as substitutes, provided such vessels have on board at least one 
operator holding a first-class certificate. However, on vessels classed under the first 
category indicated in Article XIII, the service shall be carried on by at least two 
telegraph operators holding first-class certificates. 

"In the stations on shipboard, transmissions shall be made only by operators holding 
&8t or second-class certincates except in cases of necessity where it would be impos- 
sible to conform to this provision. 

"3. The certificate shall furthermore state that the Government has bound the oper- 
ator to secrecy with regard to the correspondence. 

"4. The radio service of the station on shipboard shall be under the superior 
authority of the commanding oflScer of the ship." 
Article XIII (6) of the service regulations provides: 
"3. Stations on shipboard shall be classed under three categories: 
"(1) Stations having constant service; 
"(2) Stations having a service of limited duration; 
"(^ Stations having no fixed working hours. 

"When a ship is imder way, the following shipboard stations shall have an operatof 
constantiy listening in: First. Stations of the first category; second, those of the 
second category during the hours in which they are open to service. During the 
remaining hours, the last-named stations shall have an operator at the radio instrument 
listening in during the first 10 minutes of each hour. Stations of the third category 
are not Doimd to perform any regular service of listening in. 

" It shall fall to tne Governments issuing the licenses specified in Article IX to fix the 
ategory in which the ship shall be classed as regards its obligations in the matter of 
listening in. Mention shall be made of such classification in the license. " 

(a) The international reflations thus prescribe two operators with first-class certifi- 
cates on all ships maintaimng a constant service. A like requirement, in the opinion 
of tiie committee, should be imposed on all ships within the scope of action of the Inter- 
pational Conference on Safety at Sea which carry 100 passengers or more. The major- 
ity of such ships maintain a constant service. When 100 passengers are carried a con- 
stant service, in the opinion of the committee, may properly be i^teaetvVi^^ V^ vc>^fc\- 



J. 04 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

national regulation as a measure of safety, because a crew of at least 50 in addition to 
the passengers will be carried. The slight difference in the cost of a first-class operator 
and an operator of lower grade should not weigh against this requirement when 150 or 
more souls are involved. 

(5) Under the international regulations only a first or second grade operator ia 
authorized to transmit messages. An operator of one of these grades is thus necessary i 
on all vessels equipped with radio apparatus not included in recommendation (a) A ■ 
the committee. It seems reasonablv clear to the committee that on smaller passei]^ i 
vessels one first-grade operator should be required, and on cargo boats where speed in 
the transmission and reception of messages is of less importance a second-grade operator < 
may be permitted, although a first-grade operator would be preferred, and on the best i 
iypes of cargo boats would, in fact, usually be employed. \ 

The international regulations in effect prescribe two operators on steamers with j 
Umited passenger accommodations hy requiring an operator at the instrument not only 
during tne period when the station is open to service, but during the first 10 minutes 
of every hour during the period when the station is not open. As the convention 
provides that the service of the station shall be carried on only by certificated operators 
wad provides for only first and second grade operators, it seems clear that under inter- 
national rules the second operator on smaller passenger steamers must thus be certifi- 
cated, and the committee aoes not see any adequate reason for suggesting a departure 
from the international rule. 

• (c) The final recommendation (c) of the committee proposes a constant wireless 
watch on ocean cargo boats with crews of 50 or over, to be maintained by a certificated 
operator with the aid of another operator or a watcher, who may be a member of the 
crew competent to receive and understand distress calls or other'usual calls indicating 
danger, but not necessarily qualified to send messages or to adjust the apparatus. 
With this exception the recommendations of the committee are based not only on the 
laws of the United States but also in principle on the international convention or the 
laws of Canada and Australia. The laws of Canada and Australia do not specifically 
require a constant wireless watch on cargo boats, but authorize the administrations 
of those self-governing colonies to impose that requirement. The British bill of Feb- 
ruary 1, 1913, contemplates a constant watch by requiring on all vessels carrying 50 
persons or more a quahfied operator and at least one other qualified operator or watcher. 
The act of Congress of July 23, 1912, requires on cargo boats an operator and also a sec- 
ond operator or a member of the crew or other person competent to receive and under- 
stand distress calls or other usual calls indicating danger. 

In recommending international adoption of this rule the committee is aware that it 
is affirming in novel statutory form the old principle of the mutual obligation of those 
at sea to aid one another when in distress. The second operator or watcher on a cargo 
boat will rarely be required for the sajEety of his ship or the crew of which he is a mem- 
ber. The constant watch is to be maintained almost entirely for the purpose of en- 
abling the master of the cargo boat to be at all times in a position to receive radio 
distress calls and to render the assistance within his power. The proposition, accwd- 
ingly, is in the interests of the safety of the seafaring world, and is, in effect, a tax 
upon the owners of such cargo boats for the promotion of the safety of others. The 
obligation, however, is imposed only on car^o boats carrying a crew of 50 or more, 
which is, in effect, a minimum-tonnage limit. An examination of the lists of the 
classification societies will show that the cargo boats brought within the recommenda- 
tion are in most instances owned by large steamship corporations operating mainly 
on established routes. In such cases the obligation proposed is, in effect, compulsory 
insurance, for the watch on one ship will be maintained to an appreciable extent for 
the benefit of other ships of the same company. The tendency toward the concen- 
tration of the ownership of lar^^e ocean steamers into relatively few corporations should 
moderate opposition, which in earlier days (when the "tramp" steamer owned by 
the individual had a more important share in commerce) would have been entitled 
to greater consideration. 
Respectfully, 

E. T. Chamberlain, 
Commissioner of Navigation^ Chairrrum, 

W. H. G. BULLARD, 

Captainy U. S. Navy^ Superintendent Naval Radio Service. 

C. McK. Saltzman, 
Major, U. S. Army, Assistant to Chief Signal Officer. 

Jno. Q. Walton, 
Constructor J Revenue-Cutter Service. 
Frederick A. Kolster, 

Bureau of Standards. 



a^ETY OF LIFE AT SEA« 105 

Department of Commbbce, 

Bureau op Navigation, 
Washington^ June 10, 191S» 

The committee desigoated by the Hon. William C. Redfield, Secretary of 
*ce, to collect information and submit a report to him upon radiotelegraphy 
:hant vessels for the use of the American delegation to the Internatioiutl 
nee on Safety at Sea incloses a list of tentative propositions, and would be 
to receive your views upon the subjectB thus outlined. 

?omniittee shares in Secretary Redfield's regret that no appropriation has 
ade to carry out his original purpose to include in the membership of this 
tee expert representatives of the steamship and wireless companies as well 
^rnment officers. Accordingly, we request your cooperation through corre- 
ice. 

uld aid the work of the committee if your replies could be forwarded during 
Replies should be addressed to Commissioner of Navigation, Department of 
rce, Washington, D. C. 



lespectfully, 



W. H. G. BULLABD, 

Captain J U. S. Navy, 
Superintendent, Naval Radio Service, 
Jno. Q. Wawon, 
Constructor, Revenue- Cutter Service. 
Frederick A. Kolster, 

Bureau of Standards. 
C. McK. Sai/tzman^ 

Major, U. S. Army, 
Assistant to Chief Signal Officer. 
E. T. Chamberlain, 
Commissioner of Nofvigation, Chairman. 

SAPBTY at 8BA — RADIOTBLBORAPHY. 

ij)s to be equipped. — ^Apparatus for radio communication should be required 
hips carrying 50 persons or more (passengers or crew, or both) navigating the 
etween ports 200 or more nautical miles distant from each other. 
ange of apparatus.— The apparatus should transmit messages which may be 
d over sea by day at a distance of at least 100 nautical miles by any other such 

Avjciliary apparatus. — An auxiliary power supply should be provided, inde- 

t of the vessel's main electric-power plant, which will enable the sending 

at least four hours to send messages over a distance of at least 100 nauticsd 

y day. 

)perators. — First grade, licenaed men who receive and transmit 20 words or 

minute; second grade, licensed men who receive and transmit 12 words or 

linute ; cargo grade, watcher or member of the crew able to recognize and receive 

or danger signals and watch the apparatus. 

70 first-grade operators should be required on (o) all such ships carrying 100 

t passengers; (o) all such ships maintaining a constant service. 

le first-grade and another first or second grade operator should be required on 

r such passenger ships. 

le operator (first or second grade) and one cargo operator or watcher should be 

1 on all such cargo boats. 

EXHIBFI C. 

' TO THE Secretary op Commerce op the Committee on Eppiciency op 
ERS AND Crews — International Conperence on Safety at Sea. 

Department op Commerce, 
Washington, September 13, 1913. 
. William C. Redpield, 

Secretary of Commerce. 

The committee on efficiency of officers and crews submits the following report 
2onsideration of the Secretary of Commerce in the preparation of data for the 
he delegates of the United States to the International Conference on Safety 



106 SAFETY OP LIFE AT 8HA; 

The committee organized May 16, 1913, and has held seven meetings. After b 
study of the laws of other nations relating to the efficiency of officers and crew{ 
foreign reports and of bills pending in the Congress of the United States, with 
accompanying testimony and reports, bearing more or less directly upon the subj 
the committee on June 7 sent the attached letter of inquiry (appendix) to the princ 
American ocean-steamship companies, to maritime exchanges and chambers of c 
merce at our largest seaports, to organizations of masters and mates, engineers and 
men, to representative American ship ca}>tains, and to others, the results of wl 
experience might be helpful to the committee. Thirty-two replies have been c 
fully considered. 

At the outset the committee cordially concurs with the following views exprei 
in the closing paragraph of the report on May 15, 1913, of the British depactme 
committee on boats and davits: 

" The efficiency of the arrangements for saving life at sea depends as much upon 
competency of the officers and crew as upon the life-saving appliances on board, 
boats and other appliances require efficient crews to handle them. Strict discip 
and obedience are essential." 

The efficiency of officers of merchant vessels is already determined in accord ) 
regulations established by the principal maritime nations, which, though difie 
somewhat in scope and detail are reasonably similar in die standards required. 

1. Discipline and obedience to orders are the first essentials to efficient cr< 
but these are matters for local legislation and custom rather than international ag 
ment. 

2. The physical condition and health of seamen and the sanitary conditions lu 
which they pursue their calling enter into the problem of efficiency and in our opi 
are proper subjects of international regulation. Conclusions on these subjects, 1 
ever, must be based on medical and hygienic investigation and we are in d( 
whether the program of the conference provides for the consideration of this sut 
or whether the duration of the conference will permit the investigation and discuf 
necessary to authoritative conclusions. 

3. Training of the crews is the second essential to efficiency and the standard 
such training are proper and necessary subjects for international regulation. 

4. The basis of such training, so far as safety is concerned, should be the fire c 
closing bulkhead doors, and lueboat drills. 

OCEAN PASSENGER STEAMERS. 

5. Lifeboat drill may be divided into two parts: 

(a) Training of the crew of each lifeboat in the swinging out and lowering of b 
direction and stowing of passengers, use of oars and other equipment. 

(6) Training of the entire crew, as a unit in their duties when it becomes necet 
to abandon ship. 

6. The efficiency of the crew as a unit can be attained only by frequent and thon 
driUs of the entire crew, or at least of not less than a full watch of all departmen 

Such drills should take place: 

(a) After the ship has left the wharf on her voyage. 

(6) As a general rule once a week. 

7. Lifeboats may be divided into two classes: 
Class I— 

(a) Boats under davits. 

(b) Collapsible or decked lifeboats. 
Class II. Life rafts — 

(a) Each boat of Class I should have at least three efficient boat hands (as he 
after defined), including the officer or petty officer in charge of the boat. 
(6) Each life raft (Class II) should have at least one efficient boat hand. 

8. Definition. — An efficient boat hand shall be a man trained in the launcl 
lowering, detaching, and handling of boats and the use of oars and shall also ] 
served at least one year on vessels navigating the ocean, bays, soimds, or large in 
seas or lakes. 

9. The efficient boat hand shall have a Government certificate as such, which i 
be recognized by other Governments reciprocally. 

10. Asiatics may be certificated as efficient boat hands provided they meet the 
scribed standards and also can understand and answer the orders of the officers reh 
to lifeboat service and duties. 

11. Crews should be drilled at fire quarters and closing bulkhead doors where 
exist at least once a week. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 107 

CABOO STEAMERS. 

lew of the material di£Ference6 between pasBenger and caigo steamers and of the 
r fact that the establishment of a new rating— efllcient boat hand — has been 
nended for ocean passenger steamers which will reauire time to cany out, the 
Lttee makes no reconmiendation for cargo steamers oeyond the requirement of 
y^ boat and fire drills. 

LOOKOUTS. 

Seamen shall not serve as lookouts on ocean passenger steamers unless they have 
!xamined as to acuity of vision, color sense, and hearing, and have Government 
:ates thereto; provided that ship surgeons or other reputable physicians or 
:s may issue temporary certificates in cases where a Government meaical officer 
accessible. 

HEAEINO AND VISION OF OFFICERS. 

In our judgment all licensed officers (including engineers) in the merchant marine 
I be reouired to pass tests for hearing, and all navi^ting or deck officers should 
uired also to pass tests for color sense and acuity of vision. These tests should be 
d by Government medical officers — in the United States by officers of the 
: Health Service. The tests should be practical and reasonable: (a) For hearing 
ggest the requirement of ability to understand the words of orainary conver- 
at 30 feet; (6) for acuity of vision, using the Snellen test card, we suggest a 
ird without ^ctacles of 20/20 vision in one eye and at least 20/40 in the other, 
led that a candidate whose vision without glasses is less than this standard but 
dow 20/40 in one eye and 20/70 in the other who can show a corrected vision 
pectacles of 20/20 in one eye and 20/40 in the other may be accepted; (c) tests 
or sense should be made with the Holmgren worsteds or similar method. 
Licensed officers at the end of five-year periods should be reexamined as to 
jense, acuity of vision, and hearing, but slightly lower standards for acuity of 
and hearing would seem proper in view of the omcer's increased experience. 
Respectfully, 

E. T. Chamberlain, 
Commissioner of Navigation^ Chairman. 

D. P. Foley, 
Senior Captain, U. S. Revenue-Cfutter Service. 

Henry M. Seeley, 
Supervising Inspector, Second District, Sieamhoat- Inspection Service. 

W. J. Pettus, 
Assistant Surgeon General, Public Health Service. 

above report is signed by me, subject to the reservation that I believe it unwise 
J committee to confine itself to the recommendation that boat drills should take 
"after the ship has left the wharf on her voyage" (p. 2, sec. 6a), and after the 
"certificate," section 9, add the words "of discharge." 

Vhile I fully realize the importance of both boat and fire drills on shipboard, and 
that without proper training of ships' crews by such drills the effectiveness of 
aborate ecjuipment now required and further contemplated on board would be 
?d to a minimum, I have considerable doubt as to the advisability of our com- 
? confining itself to the recommendation that boat drills should take place 

the ship has left the wharf on her voyage." 

'onsidenng the practical side of that recommendation as I see it, and taking 
Atlantic voyages as a base and, say, the port of New York as a point of departure, 
ly and harbor of which Are second to none in North America or northern Eurojje 
ilities for holding such drills, I believe th&t to stop one of the large trans- Atlantic 
in that harbor or bay, even under the most favorable weather conditions, for the 
se of holding drills, might prove a menace to navigation, not only to the ship 
ich such drills are held but to the vessels constantly na\*igating in the \dcinity. 
orable wind and tide would necessitate much maneuvering of the ship before 

brought to a safe anchorage in order that drills be held. The same danger 
rwards present when maneuvering for a position to proceed to sea. The danger 

be much greater in the event of unsettled weather or threatening mist or fog. 
t is essential to general safety that a ship proceed to sea with all consistent speed, 
saving her wharf, in order to avoid the dangers incident to congested waters and 
le unmvorable conditions arising, such as fog, mist, show, etc. 




108 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

4. Considering the North Atlantic Ocean after leaving the United States or E 
as a suitable place for holding drills, I feel safe in saying that for months and men 
a ship may traverse the Atlantic without having an opportunity for holding an effici 
boat drill. The drills contemplated by the committee, as I understand it, are 
consist of lowering the boats to the water and the necessary hoisting of them on b 
again. They might often be lowered to the water in unfavorable weather on the oc 
and passengers safely disembarked, but in all probability many of the boats would 
seriously damaged in process of being again hoisted on board, and thus rendered 
available on the passage in the event of actual necessity arising for their use for abi 
doning the ship. 

5. Another matter for consideration in connection with holding of boat drills at 
"after liie ship has left the wharf on her voyage" is the danger of a panic, due to 
presence of a large number of foreign emigrants on board, who do not understand 
official language spoken on board, and even if they are made to comprehend that 
swinging out of the boats is for drills only, will not believe it. Several cases of a pai 
due to such drills at sea have been called to my attention. 

6. Another consideration, although commercial and secondary, is worthy of att 
tion. The probable time required for boat drill "after the ship has left her wharf i 
her voyage '^ on one of the large trans- Atlantic liners carrying, say, about 60 lifebc" 
would be, according to weather conditions, from, say, two to five hours, in clue 
rehoisting and securing of boats, and the question arises. Do conditions of the psu 
probable conditions iin the future warrant this delay to the traveling public and to' 
United States and foreign mails, and the attendant risk and dang:er as above outHi 

The lesson learned from the most deplorable disaster known, in the loss of life 
to the sinking of the Titanic^ is that the loss of life, as I understand it, was not due^ 
lack of discipline or training in connection with the lowering and handling of ' 
boats, but rather from an insufficient number of lifeboats to accommodate all 
gers. Some of the boats of the Titanic^ I understand, were not fully loaded, not 
of a lack of training in their handling but because passengers would not go into 
that first left the ship. 

I suggest, in connection with boat drills once each week, weather permittingj 
already recommended, that all boats under davits bo swung out at least once 
month, and a number of them lowered, so that all boats must have been in the t 
at least once in six months, the report of same to be entered in the ship's log book. 

I also suggest for consideration that as all departments are to be drawn upon ' 
boat hands, that each lifeboat of Class I should have efficient boat hands, as oef 
equal to 10 per cent of the number of persons the lifeboat is certified to carry; that] 
to say, a lifeboat certified for 50 persons would require five of that number to be efficic 
boat hand. 

7. I further suggest that section 9, on page 2, be amended in the first line, in 
diately following the word "certificate, by adding the words "of discharge," 
certificate to be included in the current official "certificate of discharge," as 
signed by the master, and who shall be the judge of efficiency of the boat hand, ag] 
now is of the sailor's "character" and "capacity." 

Respectfully, 

Henry M. Seeley, 
U. S. Supervising Inspector ^ Second District. 



Appendix. 

Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Navigation, 

Washington J June 7, i913. 

Sir: The committee designated by the Hon. William C. Redfield, Secretary of 
merce, to collect information and submit a report to him upon "Efficiency of of 
and crews " of merchant vessels for the use of the American delegation to the In< 
national Conference on Safety at Sea incloses a list of questions, and would be pic 
to receive your views upon the subjects thus outlined. 

The committee shares in Secretary Redfield 's regret that no apj)ropriation has be^ 
made to carry out his original purpose to include in the membership of this committqi 
expert representatives of the various organizations and compames intimately cxM 
cemed with the subjects assigned as well as Government officers. Accordingly ii| 
request your cooperation through correspondence. 




I 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT 8BA» 109 

It would aid the work of the committee if your replies could be forwarded during 
aie. Replies should be addressed to Commissioner of Navigation, Department of 
Unmerce, Washington, D. C. 

Respectfully, W. J. Pettus, 

Aesistant Surgeon General , Public Health Service. 

[ Henry M. Seeley, 

Supervising Inspector j Second District^ Steamboat-Inspection Service. 

D. P. Foley, 
Senior Captain^ U. S. Revenue-Cutter Service. 

I E. T. Chamberlain, 

« Commissioner of Navigation, Chairman. 

r Safety at Sea — ^Efficibncy of Officers and Crews. 



\ 



I. STANDARDS FOR MANNING LJEFEBOATS. 

^assenger steamers. — The efficient manning of lifeboats of passenger steamers involves 
"iching and handling of the boats and their equipment, swinging out, direction and 

of passengers, lowering, detaching, hoisting, and use of care. 

lould standards be established — 



I) By statute? 



p) By r^ulation of the Steamboat-Inspection Service? 

(1) Should the standard be based on years of service on deck; should the stand- 
be service for one, two, or three yeajs? 
J2) Should the standard be based on practical tests of the man's ability to perform 
work involved in manning lifeboats? Should such tests be conducted by and 
' led to by Government officers? 

\) Should the standard be based both on deck service and on practical tests? 
. (1) What minimum number of the crew for each lifeboat under davits should be 
luired to conform to such standard of efficiency? 

[2) What minimum number of the crew for collapsible boats, life rafts, etc., should 
Required to conform to such standard? 

>. Are members of the engine department and of the steward's department, by 
svious occupation or by training on shipboard, competent for lifeboat service? 
(1) Assuming that the crew must be trained ana organized as a whole ae to the 
of each member in case it is necessary to take to the boats, can this training 
I secured without a drill at which all lifeboats are lowered with the crews in them? 
Fj[2) Does the personnel of the crew change so frequently that such a drill should 
place once for each voyage? 
^ in the case of Asiatics or other seamen who, through lack of knowledge of the 
of officers, do not understand orders, what provision should be made ? Should 
be wholly or partly ineligible for certain duties; and if so, what duties and to 
extent? 

Cargo steamers. — Please consider the same subjects in their relation to crews of 
steamers, on which, through the absence of passengers, including women and 
kildren, the problems are much simpler. 

II. STANDARD TESTS — HEARING OF LICENSED OFFICERS. 

1. The present r^ulations reauire tests for color sense and vision by a medical 
^cer of me United States Public Health Service for the original license issued to 
Mtem, mates, and pilots, but require no examination by medical officers for hearing, 
is prescribed by certain foreign countries. Candidates' hearing is now tested by 
local inspectors of steam vessels. 
(«) In your judgment, should the examination for original licenses of licensed 
! (including engineers) require tests for hearing by medical officers of the United 
Public H^th Service? 
(ft) Would you deem the requirement of ability to hear a whispered voice at 10 feet 
^Ixmes of (Mrdinary conversation at 30 feet a fair test? 

III. STANDARD TESTS — RENEWAL OF LICENSES.* 

[;In your judgment, should the same requirements for vision and hearing be pre- 
' for the renewal of licenses as for the issue of original licenses? 

lb case any candidate falls in the examination for color sense, he may be allowed a second examina- 
i apoQ th« request of the proper (^cers. The Williams lantern for testing color sense, or some other 
of equal merit, may he used for the second test. 



< 



110 SAFBTY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

rV. STANDARD TESTS — ^LOOKOUTS, ETC.^ 

In view of their important work, lookout men, steersmen, and quartermasters 
the law of several countries are subjected to medical tests for color sense and visionJ 

(a) In your judgment, should seamen serving as lookout men, steersmen, 
Quartermasters be subjected to tests for color sense and hearing by medical ofl5< 
tne United States Public Health Service and certificates thereof be furnished? 

(b) Should the tests for color sense and hearing be the same as for licensed of 

(c) Should tests for acuteness of vision of lookout men, steersmen, and qi 
masters be made without glasses, since it is not their custom or practice to wear 

(d) Would a requirement of 20/30 vision in one eye and 20/40 in the oth« 
without glasses be a fair test? (The test mentioned means that at 20 feet the a 
date is able to read with one eye that which the normal eye should read at 30 
With the other eye the candidate must be able to read at 20 feet what the 
eye should read at 40 feet.) 

V. POSSIBLE EXTENSION OP STANDARD TESTS.* 

Would you favor requiring all seamen of the deck department to be tested for 
color sense, and hearing, the tests in these cases to be tne same standard as for licei 
officers; the testing for color sense in all cases to be made with the Holmgren woi 
as prescribed in the regulations of the United States Public Health Service? 



Exhibit D. 

Keport to THE Secretary of Commerce of the Committee on Hulls 
Bulkheads — International Conference on Safety at Sea. 

Department of Commerce, 
Washington, September IS, 191S.^- 
To Hon. William C. Redpibld, 

Secretary of Commerce, 

Sir: A joint committee of officers of the Departments of the Navy and of Commi 
was organized under your verbal instructions of May 12, 1913, for the purpoL 
obtaining certain information relative to structural subdivision of vessels, this inl 
mation being for the use of the Department of Commerce and of such representat* 
as may ultimately be designated to represent the United States at an lntemati< 
Conference on Safety at Sea, to be held at London in the near future. This co 
tee has the honor to submit the following preliminary report: 

The committee met and organized in room 174, Navy Department, on May 13, 1 
the naval members of the committee having reported for this duty to the Sea:e' 
of Commerce on the previous day. 

As explained by tne Secretary of Commerce at a joint meeting of shipbuilder 
representatives of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engmeers, and rej '' 
sentatives of the Department of Commerce, held in the office or the Secretary 
April 28, 1913, there were no fimds at the disposal of the Department which were avi 
able for the ore;anization and work of a technical committee which could thorough 
investigate ana make detailed calculations relating to the subject matter in questi 
for use before the proposed International Conference on Safety at Sea, although 
was known that similar investigations and calculations were then in progress in seva 
foreign countries under the supervision of highly skilled technical committees yd\ 
ample resources at their command. 

The formation of the undersigned committee, which grew out of the above-no 
conference of April 28, 1913, was therefore in tne nature of a convenient expedii 
to obtain as soon as practicable, through a committee of United States officers, ce; * 
general information which would be of assistance to such representatives as 
hereafter be designated to represent the United States at the proposed intematioiiil 
conference. 

Acting under your general verbal instructions, the committee met from time 
time, and after j)reliminary investigation prepared a list of questions which was 
bodied in your circular letter of June 14, 1913. (See Appendix A.) In the prep 

tion of these questions the committee, as stated in the Secretary's letter above nol 

1^ 

1 In case any candidate fails in the examination for color sense, he may be allowed a second examim 
tion upon the request of the proper officers. The Williams lantern for testing color sense, or some o^B 
lantern of equal merit, may be used for the second test. 




SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. Ill 

■d the assistance of Mr. James Donald, a naval architect, who cooperated with th^ 
Dnunittee as a representative of the principal shipbuilding firms on the Atlantic 
jpwst of the United States. 
The particular object of this circular letter was stated therein as being for the purpose 

[cbtaiiiing specific information from experts as to the character of structural arrange- 
tuents of Slips which should be required by national and international regulations 
H insure their safety at sea." 
^Also that — 
''The information sought, especially that relating to transoceanic vessels, is intended 
narily for the assistance of the Department of Commerce in preparing suggestions 
such representatives as may hereafter be designated to represent the United States 
a proposed international conference on safety of life at sea. It will be noted, how- 
ir, that some of the questions relate to vessels whose service is such as to place them 
^^ond the scope of the j)ropo6ed international conference. While the authority for 
pnitable structural subdivision of these vessels to insure safety in operation is already 
Qtained in general terms in the provisions of statute law, me department desires to 
brace this opportunity to obtain the opinions of those highly qualified to render 
istance in sucn matters, with a view to improving the present conditions. 
"The questions submitted have been arranged to cover the principal subjects 
rolved, but it is not intended that they should limit in any sense the action of those 
whom they are addressed. It is the object of the department to obtain the most 
mplete information practicable, and it is requested that the answers to questions 
clearly and fully expressed. Any suggestions tending to simplify or improve 
ent conditions or req^uirements will be welcomed and will undoubtedly greatly 
jt the department in its work." 
A list of those to whom these circular letters were sent is herewith appended. (See 
pendix B.) Reference to this list shows that these circular letters were very 
lerally distributed among those directly, and even indirectly, interested in the 
tters at issue. The scope of the questions was broad, and am{)le opportunity and 
couragement was given to those interested to submit their opinions and views. 
Those who have so far submitted replies are indicated by numerals in Appendix B. 
)nsideration of these replies indicates that some of the writers have gone carefully 
to the questions at issue and have given specific replies thereto, but many of them 
rely touch the surface, and in manv of the communications there is distinct recog- 
on of the difliculty of giving specific replies to some of the questions without going 
> elaborate detailed calculations which could not be undertaken by them except 
an unwarranted expenditure of time and money. 

The committee made a brief tabulation of the replies for its own convenience, but 
order that the views of the various writers may be considered in their entiretjr it 
suggested that those replies which are complete and do not involve expensive 
ammatic reproduction be printed as Appendix C to the report. 
e committee has had neither opportunity nor means to go much beyond the orig- 
intention and instructions, namely, the formulation of certain comprehensive 
ons and the arrangement and presentation of replies thereto, all for the assist- 
_ of the Department of Commerce and those who mav subsequently be designated 
representatives of the United States at the proposed International Conference in 
moon. The committee understands, however, that the Secretary would be glad 
have an expression of such general conclusions as the committee might feel war- 
ited in submitting as a result of their investigation and after consideration of the 
lies to the interrogatories contained in the Secretary's circular letter of June 14, 
The committee therefore submits in brief general terms its conclusions, fol- 
the order of questions originally propounded. In this connection the com- 
invites attention to the fact that it expected to obtain additional information 
this subject through Mr. James Donald as a result of certain inquiries he intended 
king wmle abroad. It is understood, however, that Mr. Donald does not expect 
return to the United States until some time in October; under the circumstances 
committee deems it expedient to submit a preliminary report at this time. 
The committee also deems it important to emphasize a fact wrdch is already no doubt 
loroughly appreciated by the Secretary, namely, that definite information concern- 
many of the important questions embraced in the list prepared by the committee 
only be obtained through careful and exhaustive research by a body of experts 
ially detailed for said work and having at their command ample resources to prose- 
their investigations to a satisfactory conclusion. Moreover, the importance of 
and allied subjects under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce is so 
I; that the committee is impelled to point ont the advisability — indeed the neces- 
— of having in the Department of Commerce a technical body suitably equipped 



112 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

and qualified to pass upon all the technical questions which so frequently arise 
respect to the suitability and the proper construction of vessels and their equip 
Such a body of experts could act witn knowledge and authority in technical m 
in dispute and would greatly assist in the execution of rules already established 
standard classification societies and would also facilitate and encourage improvemi 
in such rules tending to increase the efficiency of vessels for the purpose for wl 
intended, with concurrent regard for the safety of passengers and crew. 

It is recognized that the provision of such expert assistance for the Department 
Commerce would require new legislation, but the importance of the subject is so 
that the committee deems it a duty to recommend its serious consideration by 
Secretary. 

As clearly indicated in the circular letter of June 14, 1913, many of the questionB 
that letter relate to matters beyond the scope of the proposed International Confere: 
It was also noted that information on these subjects was desired for the assistance 
the Department of Commerce. These and similar questions should ultimately 
passed upon by experts acting under the general direction of the Department of Coi 
meroe, as already indicated in this report; in fact, it would be most unsatisfactory 
attempt to decide in a cursory and incomplete manner important technical qui 
tions upon the investigation of which foreign maritime departments, boards 
trade, and technical committees under their jurisdiction are now expending and ha' 
heretofore expended much time and money. The committee realizes that such 
investigation is not intended as a part of its duties; also that there has been neithi 
time nor means at the disposal of the Department of Commerce to make such an inv» 
tigation; but the importanace of the subject is so great that the committee feels coit 
strained to express itself ver\ strongly thereon. 

The general conclusions of the committee, in brief, following the order of the qua 
tions contained in the Secretary's letter of June 14, 1913 (Appendix A), are as followa 

Question No. 1: It is considered advisable to prescribe by regulation, under author 
ity of law, the maximum draft and minimum freeboard for all classes of vessels. J 

Questions Nos. 2 and 3: The Department of Commerce should prescribe geneni 
rules after careful investigation by its own experts. The rules of each classincatioa^ 
society should be treated on their merits, and approved or disapproved accordingly^ 

Question No. 4: This question can only be satisfactorily answered in detail aft 
careful and complete investigation and calculation. 

Question No. 5 (a) and (6): Material changes in present requirements of stanc 
classification societies probably impracticable; but in Classes Ilia and Illb th< 
should be ample lifeboat capacity on each side of ship for all persons on board, 
such lifeboat provision is believed to be entirely practicable. 

Question No. 6: Rules and curves fixing the "margin of safety line" are consid«re^ 
desirable for Classes la, lb, Ila, lib, such rules to be based upon complete investiga^ 
tion after the manner indicated in answer to Question No. 4. 

Question No. 7: It is considered desirable to prescribe by regulation the maximum 
number of adjacent main compartments for each class, after complete investigatioa 
and calculation, as indicated in answer to Question No. 4. 

Question No. 8: Defmite answer to this question is necessarily dependent upon 
complete investigation, as noted in the answer to Question No. 4. 

Question No. 9: It is considered necessary to formulate and prescribe rules for thtf 
spacing, strength, and tests of water-tight bulkheads, but not for details of construction. 

Question No. 10: 

(a) In general, yes. Conditions for each type of vessel should be carefully con- 
sidered after expert investigation and action taken accordingly. 

(6) In general, not to be required; vessels of imusual dimensions to be considered oifc 
their merits. 

(c) Desirable, though in general, and especially for small vessels, not to be required. 
Vessels of large dimensions to be considered on tneir merits. 

(d) Openings in main transverse and longitudinal water-tight bulkheads (except afl 
absolutely necessary for the trimming of coal) to be permitted only under exceptional 
conditions, and then the location and character to be subject to the approval of the 
Department of Commerce. 

{e) In general, trunks not considered practicable, 

(j) Desirable that water-tight bulkhead doors be controlled from bridge. 

(a) All water-tight doors in bulkheads should be capable of operation at the door. 

{%) For water-tight doors in important water-ti^ht transverse bulkheads, inde- 
pendent mechanical operation from bulkhead deck is desirable. 

Question No. 11 (a), (6), and (c): All lights below bulkhead deck should be fixed^ 
except under exceptional circumstances, due to type and size of vessel and iocatioia 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT 8£A. US 

il bulkhead deck, and even then location and character should be subject to approvaH 
ii Department of Commerce. 

Question No. 12: 

(a) For Classes la, lb, I la, lib, in wake of machinery spaces and other large com 
Mfftments, the double bottom or its ecjuivalent should be extended to underside of 
JLeck immediately above load water line. 

(6) The double bottom should be carried above turn of bilge and to a height above 
kiMfle line in no case less than twice the depth of double bottom at center line of 
^essel. 

(c) It is considered desirable that for Classes la, lb, I la, lib the double bottom 
ihould extend imder all main compartments forward and abaft engine and boileif 
ppaces. 

Question No. 13: General rules are advisable. 
Very respectfully, 
i W. L. Capps, 

Chief Constructor ^ United States Navy^ Chairman^ 

D. W. Taylor, 
Naval Constructor y United States Navy. 

' Geo. Uhler, 

' Supervising Inspector General^ Steamboat-Inspection Service. 

' • E. T. Chamberlain, 

'■ Commissioner of Navigation. 



APPENDIXES. 

[Appendix A.— Safety at Sea.] 

Department of Commerce, 
^ Washington, June 14^ 191S. 

Sir: With a view to obtaining specific information from experts as to the character 
^ structural arrangements of ships which should be requirea by national and inter- 
national regulations to insure their safety at sea, the department has appointed a 
lint committee of officers from the Department of the Navy and the Dep£u*tment of 
ommerce to prepare a list of questions relating to the "Bulkhead subdivision of 
essels and other structural features affecting the safety of ships at sea." This com- 
ittee is composed of the following gentlemen: 

Washington L. Capps, Chief Constructor, United States Navy, Department of the 
Ifavy. 

David W. Taylor, Naval Constructor, United States Navy, Department of the 
Navy. 

George Uhler, Supervising Inspector General, Steamboat-Inspection Service, 
Department of Commerce. 

B. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner of Navigation, Department of Commerce. 

Mr. James Donald, naval architect, of Boston, has been designated by a com-* 
mittee of shipbidlders on the Atlantic coast to represent them before the depart* 
lient in the preliminary investigation involved, and has ably cooperated with thtf 
committee in preparing the questions contained in this communication. 

It is requested that your answers be submitted as early as practicable, and in ordef 
to expedite action you are requested to send your rephes mrect to the "Chairman, 
Committee on Questions Relating to Bulkhead Subdivision, etc.. Room 174, Navy 
Department, Washington, D. C." 

' The information sought, especially that relating to transoceanic vessels, is intended 
[primarily for the assis&nce oi the Department of Commerce in preparing suggestionB 
br such representatives as may hereafter be designated to represent the United 
States at a proposed International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea. It will be 
ftoted, however, that some of the questions relate to vessels whose service is suet* 
« to place them beyond the scope of the proposed international conference. Whfltf 
ftc authoritjr for suitable structural subdivision of these vessels to insure safety 
in operation is already contained in general terms in the provisions of statute law^ 
^e aepartment desires to embrace this opportunity to obtain the opinions of those 
Wghly qualified to render assistance in such matters, with a view to improving^ the 
present conditions. 

The questions submitted have been arranged to cover the principal subjects involved, 
wt it is not intended that they should limit in any sense the action of those to w&otn 
ftey are addressed. It is the object of the department to obtain the most coftipHtfte 

38 411 1 4 8 



»/•./. = ,- ^/;-^w/•/: «.-. v.25^=«ri.-,r.* -^rr.:-::.-^ % n.-j-^lirr :r i—pnve present « 






/f.s-;^' r//*» <':.','/r. v; A;;'.. >'. .';.'; r..- : r-irijrriT':. ". TiTr "J. r>=-q'jire that '*ocil 
w*e%tt.tt;i '*•,•/,:./ ;/ww- -.;/<:» *r.Ai. r,^ *^. .irj.-'-'i "5^".h. lii-^r/irs f ■^itS'^ient capidi 
»// 3/"„'r.r,'..'/'Uv ** '„'.«- \::.c- *.. ^/e--*..:.'* "-.' '• iri. in ".Miir-r r-as^ne^re anacn 
* * * f >;/«?;<■;.'<• .'.*? 'j'-rr.-,:.*Vi-/- ;. r.TrVrr. :hj: liUpr/'.-isiMn requiot 
\\U','fi^''s :';r k'.. or. tyAr*\ *\'A'* :.',*. **t^ .."- ":.'.:>> riir";.- in th*- ♦rvVnt of disaster eye 
ih tfi'^U f:9*d f.*kU,"r 1 ti'-r'i'iT'' •:.'• - /^/-'* : "r/;rt'r.«-i*i -:':..■ iivL«i«n i? nf the utmo 
i rri J/' /f ';•'<'«■ ;'#r ;/»AV',',^<rr v<'i^-> i:. ',r'i'-r "hi* rM^h vf-rr^:« E^ay li.iat in danuoe 

I I jtf f*''/r/f,i[//./j th^t ih<- <zt>Tj» Arj'i ' hira'^t^^-r -f praf livable subdi\-irion is neoe 
wrily 'Ui,ti,/\t'fii iijf'/fj th'- -i/.'r afj'i \iiU:iif\'-d s^rA^f- 'if the veaeels. It is alsoraoDi 
!&/*') Mt;ft riil«'» Aj/f/li' iibl" t/^ n'rw 'ori-ftrKti'iri must be in«»dified. or perhaps in son 
Uii'iitfi' * a 7/;»i •/<■'!. fv; far a". ''orj"friift v^-j-Mrlr alrfra/ly built, and that final action to I 
mti'tnlw \nf/ r/pii«"t. b«- b;tMi'd iij*'/rj th'r rnoKt ^-omplete understanding of all the conditkx 

Wifh'Mil »t(i'rMfifiri(/: f/i fix t'Ki ^fxpliriily at the present lime the lines of demarcatic 
hflwi'f-M f yp«'M of v*'ph"Ik, it, HCf^mH bent in rr>riHid''r P]>e<.'ififally certain definite typt 
KlUi'Mit'li vji'WB unr| onini/friM rf^K^rdin^ any other types will be welcomed. 

Thf f'>ll'iwiri(/ jin- fin- Hpi-rifir- lypr-H for whi<!h questions have been prepared: 

VRMHKr.M KSriAfiKli IS' TKA NHATLANTIC AND TRAN'SPACIFIC TRADE. 

III lixnrK |MU!fN>iiK<'r Mti-anifrH carryinf; j)assengers, baggage, mail, and exprei 

I hi Ml«MiiM>in iMiKiiK<'d in curry in^' both freight and passengers, but of such characb 
Uint llii'v niiiHl. Im' r('KHrd<>fi prinmrily as pawcMigcT vessels. 

I I Id Mtntmii'm iMtKiM^ed in rurrying freight only, or freight and some passenger 
liiif iif ftiif li i-lniriM'tcr llnil. 1Ih\v niiist be regarded primarily as cargo vessels. 

VRFif4ti;|,fi KNciAOI'lii IN f'OANTWINK AND OCKAN TRADE OTHER THAN THOSE EMBRAd 

IN (jUKNTIONM lU, Iia. AND Ilia. 

lb l,firiii» piiriHf>ii|rfir Hlf>iinii*rH nirrying piuvcMigi^rs, baggage, mail, and express. 

1 1 b Mimiinf'rp i'iirr\ ing bi)th frtMglit and pasHongi^rs, but of such character that thr 
nniRl I If i-p|!in-t|iM| primarily ju* pawiMipT vesw^ls. 

II lb NiiMiiniM-M i««rrying fiiMght onh-, or friMght and some passengers, but of sue 
a ilimmli'i tluit \\\o\ \\\\\h\ Im» n^gjmlod primarily as cai^ vessels. 

Oni>fl(iitn Nn I. In tmlor lo inmin' sifety at sea it is one of the first prinddi 
of tlf«fiiun ilnil <ho \ow*f»l Hhould bo seaworihy under all conditions of weauM 
xvhi'n litixlfid 10 It r«»rtiuu nmxinnnn dnuighl. and that such a vessel should not) 
li»nili«d mt i)n 10 Imivo fiv«»boanl low than » certain denned minimum. \\liatisyQK 
»»piiniin w* 10 iho udxiNrtbilitv of pn^smbing by law or regulation this maxinw a 
ibHni;hi nml luininnim fn»oboanl for all claj«^8 of vessels? 

^^i.'fliion No •> Whrtt \K \smx opinion a^ to the ad\'isabilitv of pro^idillJ J 
\n\\ 1^1 n^Milniion Mandanlj« oi hull ivnstruclion. and how far should the rules of c»« 
fiijiiion Hih tiMiof' bo ivii>mn'/iHi in nirtltors ivriainiug to st^anUings, structural ampgr 

<^ioMion \,^ \\ Should l.ho rnlos ot classification swieties be passed upon ( 
|j,non oili, liii nsHKvnition b\ \\ doivwinioni of the Government acting with diBW 



Mv .i,h1,.. ,...u:nn :.po, Wusl ,^^n.hllon^ oi .larnaco. 1^1 ii also be assumed that 
Mi.'iiM I., fHhvl XX 111, oMi, „.in nwoMoi-sc xx-aior-iiirhi bulkheads or a combi 
oi i,-:,n'x,.,.'s 'Mu\ i.m,. ii,hl,n»l Axrti.M' iK'bi !.uiUioa*'is"And i^-ator-iight decks 90 
tli-o xxiuM. :, •-V'-'i'M'^l iiniubo. oi Maj.^ii.v.^c msir. . MmivuiJiTcnts are in t 
•'nn..n XX,, I, il„ .,», ,i„. nvrovnuv^t xahiov ncbi r.d to which all the biUtJ 



iree 
ulkheadfl 




SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 115 

buoyancy of vessel referred to above may be expressed as a percentage of the dis- 
pkMiieinent after damage and may be defined by freeboard below the bulkhead deck. 
This freeboard may be expressed as a fraction of the depth of the ve^l amidships 
measured from the upper side of the bulkhead deck to the bottom of keel. Upon the 
above assumption wnat percentage of reserve buoyancy imder the bulkhead deck 
do you recommend for vessels of Classes la, lb, I la, and lib, under the following 
conditions: 

(a) When any two adjoining main compartments are in free communication with the 
sea under the most unfavorable conditions of stowage of said compartments. 

Class la? 
Class lb? 
Class Ila? 
Class lib? 

(b) When any three adjoining main compatments are in free communication with the 
sea as in preceding condition. 

Class la? 
Class lb? 
Class Ila? 
Class lib? 

(c) When any four adjoining main compartments are in free communication with the 
sea as in preceding condition. 

Class la? 
Class lb? 
Class Ila? 
Class lib? 

Question No. 5. Referring to Glass Ilia and Class Illb^ it is recognized that it would 
I)08sibly be detrimental to legitimate business interests if water-tight transverse bulk- 



TtnuAtj^ 




r----^-r - - ■» 



^mOa^ 




B) dat^fciM flftQditiaq 



L 



heads were located closer than required by present rules of standard classification 
societies. Therefore in Classes Ilia and Illb, wherever additional transverse bulk- 
head subdivision is impracticable, it would seem desirable to arrange for lifeboats at 
davits on each side of tne vessel sufficient to accommodate all persons on board. 

(a) What is your opinion as to the practicable degree of transverse bulkhead sub- 
division of Classes Ilia and Illb? 

(h) What is your opinion as to the practicability of providing for Classes Ilia and 
nib ample boat capacity at davits on each side of vessel for all persons on board? 

Question No. 6. Is it considered necessary to formulate and prescribe rules and 
corves which will fix the "margin of safety line" for vessels in Classes la, lb, Ila, lib, 
Illa, and lllb? 

Question No. 7. What is your opinion as to the advisability of prescribing by law or 
Illation for each of the Classes la, lb, Ila, lib. Ilia, and Illb, the maximum number 
of adjacent main compartments which, under the most unfavorable conditions of stow- 
ige and weather, could be flooded without imperiling the safety of the vessel? 
• Question No. 8. 'Wliat is your opinion as to the maximum number of such compart- 
loents which shoiild be prescribed for — 

Glass la? 

Glaasib? 

Glass Ila? 

Glass lib? 

Glass llla? 

Glass Illb? 



116 SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 

In submitting your ianswer, it is requested that you make such further subdivision 
of classification as you may consider expedient or necessary with especial reference to 
the size of vessel and trade in which employed. 

Question No. 9. Is it considered necessary to formulate and prescribe rules for the 
construction and spacing of water-tight bulkneads for vessels in the above noted classes. 

Question No. 10. What is your opinion on the following questions for each of Classes 
la, lb, Ila, lib. Ilia, and Illb: ; 

(a) As to the advisability of making the ** bulkhead deck" continuous fore and aft? 
As to making it extend only outside of the machinery spaces? 

(6) As to introduction of water-tight decks or flats below the "bulkhead deck," 
especially at forward end of vessel? 

(c) As to the fitting of continuous or partially continuous fore and aft water-tight 
wing bulkheads providing fuel space and at the same time water-tight compartments, 
tending to preserve buoyancy in the event of damage due to collision or otherwise? 

(d) As to the necessity for openings in main transverse and longitudinal water-tijht 
bulkheads (except as absolutely necessary for the trimming of coal) when access oe- 
tween compartments can be provided by going to an upper deck at level of top of bulk- 
head and down through a deck opening into ^jacent compartments? 

(e) In view of the difficulty of fitting efficient water-tignt hatches in the bidkhead 
deck, what is your opinion as to the practicability and desirability of substituting 
therefor water-tight trunks to the deck or decks overhead? 

(J) Where water-tight doof s are fitted in water-tight bulkheads, is it necessary that 
they be mechanically operated from the bridge? 

(g) Is it necessary that all water-tight doors in bulkheads be capable of operation 
at tiie door? 

(k) Is it necessary that all water-tight doors in bulkheads be mechanically operated 
from the bulkhead deck? 

Question No. 11. As bearing upon q^uestions of buoyancjr and safety of vessels under 
all conditions, what is your opimon with respect to the fitting of air ports or side lights 
below the ** bulkhead deck" and the limitations which should be imposed as to meir 
use and location: 

(a) As to height of lowest tier above deep-load water line, amidships, and at the 
ends of the vessel? 

(6) As to their being fixed or capable of being opened, and the minimum height 
above the deep-load water line, forward, amidships, and aft, permissible for side 
lights which can be opened? 

(c) Should the so-called fixed side lights be arranged to be opened in case of emer- 
gency to provide for desired egress from compartments under such conditions as pre- 
vailed in connection with the disastrous fire at the Hoboken piers some years ago? 
(This emergency provision might take the form of a movable light operated by a Key 
kept in a locked glass case, with suitable instructions for its use.) 

Question No. 12. With respect to increasing the safety of vessels by the provision of 
a double bottom, what is your opinion as to &e following for vessels of Classes la, lb, 
Ila, lib. Ilia, and Illb: 

(a) Do you consider it necessary or advisable to extend the double bottom to th» 
underside of the deck immediately above the load water line? 

(6) Do you consider it necessary or advisable to extend the double bottom up to 
or above the turn of bilge? Would you consider it sufficient to extend it to a height 
above base line equal to twice the depth of tlie double bottom at center line of veaeels 
amidships? 

(c) What is your opinion as to the desirable longitudinal extent of the double bottom 
outside of engine and boiler spaces? 

Question No. 13. With respect to provision of safety of vessels by increasing the 
maneuvering power through greater efficiency of rudder, do you consider it advisable^ 
to formulate rules specifying size of rudders and consequent maneuvering pow» of 
vessel since the lack of sufficient maneuvering power may have contributed toward 
maritime disasters resulting from collision on the high seas? 

Question No. 14. In addition to the points covered by the foregoing questions, the 
department would be pleased to receive for consideration any other suggestions <or 
recommendations you aesire to submit in respect to structural subdivision or amage- 
ment of ships, with a view to increasing their safety at sea. 
Respectfully, 

William C. Redfield, Secretary. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 117 

[Appendix B.— List of those to whom copy of circular letter of June 14, 1913, was sent.] 

Herbert L. Aldrich, publisher International Marine Engineering, 17 Battery Place, 
New York, N. Y. 

Calvin Austin, president Eastern Steamship Corporation, India Wharf, Boston, 
MasB. 

W. I. Babcock, engineer and naval architect, 17 State Street, New York, N. Y. 

H. D. Bacon, president Bath Marine Construction Co., Bath, Me. 

Frederic W. Baker, naval architect, American Car & Foundry Co., Wilmington, Del. 

G. E. Baker, marine department. Board of Trade, London, England. 

Arthur Binney. naval architect. Mason Building, Boston^ Mass. 

John M. Blankenship, superintendent Merchant & Miners* Transportation Co., 
Baltimore. Md. 

Rear Aamiral Francis T. Bowles, president Fore River Shipbuilding Co., Quincy, 
Mass. 

H. H. Brown, editor International Marine Engineering, 17 Battery Race, New 
York, N. Y. 

John K. Bulger, supervising inspector, Steamboat-Inspection Service, San JVan- 
ciflco, Cal. 

Ernest M. Bull, vice president A. H. Bull Steamship Co., 10 Bridge Street, New 
York, N. Y. 

Capt. W. D. Bumham, American-Hawaiian Steamship Co., 8 Bridge Street, New 
York, N. Y. 

Rear Admiral W. L. Capps, chairman committee on hulls and bulkheads, room 174, 
Navy Department, Washington, D. C. 

Thomas Clyde, shipowner, 24 State Street, New York, N. Y. 

William P. Clyde, shipowner, 24 State Street, New York, N. Y. 

Engineer in Chief H. I. Cone, United States Navy, Chief Bureau of Steam Engi- 
neering, Navy Department, Washington, D. C. 

Daniel H. Cox, 15 William Street, New York, N. Y. 

Irving Cox, naval architect, 15 WilHam Street, New York, N. Y. 

W. G; Coxe, president Harlan & HoUingsworth Corporation, Wilmington, Del. 

Clinton H. Crane, naval architect, 52 Pine Street, New York, N. Y. 

T. F. Crane, acting president Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 

C. B. Dearborn, president American-Hawaiian Steamship Co., 8 Bridge Street, 
New York, N.Y. 

John H. Dialogue, shipbuilder, 408 Cooper Street, Camden, N. J. 

George W. Dickie,* naval architect, care of Pacific Coast Co., 10 WaU Street, New 
York, N. Y. 

James Dickie, naval architect and marine engineer, 112 Market Street, San Fran- 
ciflco, Cal. 

W. A. Dobson,* naval architect, William Cramp & Sons Ship A Engine Building Co., 

Philadelphia, Pa. 

William R. Donnelly, consulting mechanical engineer, 17 Battery Place, New 
York, N. Y. 

E. H. Duff, 1306 F Street NW., Washington, D. C. 

Prof. William Frederic Durand, executive head department of mechanical engi- 
neering, Leland Stanford Junior University, Leland Stanford, Cal. 

Capt. C. W. Dyson, United States Navj, Navy Department, Washington, D. C. 

Rear Admiral John R. Edwards, United States Navy, Navy Department, Wash- 
ington, D. C. 

Samuel Holmes, Morris Building, 66 Broad Street, New York, N. Y. 

Holden A. Evans, second vice president Seattle Construction & Dry Dock Co., 
Seattle, Wash. 

George R. Ferguson, assistant engineer, department of bridges, 179 Washington 
Street, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Homer L. Ferguson, general manager Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 
Newport News, Va. 
■ Theodore A. Ferris, supervisor, 30 Church Street, New York, N. Y. 

Edwin O. Fitch, jr., care postmaster, Easton, Pa. 

Andrew Fletcher, president and treasurer North River Iron Works, Hoboken, N. J. 

Daniel E. Ford, superintendent construction and repairs. Standard Oil Co., 26 
Broadway, New York, N. Y. 

Hugo Frear, superintendent Union Iron Works, San Francisco, Cal. 

J. Howland Gardner, superintendent marine construction, New England Steamship 
Co., Newport, R. I. 

1 Reply received. 



118 SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 

Albert W. Goodrich, president Goodrich Transportation Co., foot of Michigan 
Avenue, Chicago, 111. 

Rear Admiral Robert S. Griffin, United States Navy, president American Society f- 
of Naval Engineers, Navy Department, Washington, D. C. ^ 

H. S. Grove, president William Cramp & Sons' Ship & Engine Building Co., Phila- ■ 
dejphia. Pa. 

Robert Haig,^ surveyor, Lloyd's Register of Shipping, 324 The Bourse, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 

Nathaniel G. Herreshoff, vice president and manager Herreshoff Manufacturing 
Co., Bristol, R. I. 

Albert L. Hopkins, vice president Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 
room 1801, 30 Church Street, New York, N. Y. 

Capt. William Hovgaard,^ professor of naval design and construction, Massachusetb *^ 
institute of Technology, Boston, Mass. 

President Alexander C. Humphreys, Stevens Institute of Technology, Castle Point, j 
Hoboken, N.J. 9 

President H. B. Hutchins, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. i 

Charles E. Hyde, naval architect and engineer, 424 West Twentieth Street, New ; 
York, N. Y. 5 

John C. Hyde, president Bath Iron Works, Bath, Me. ". 

President David Starr Jordan, Leland Stanford Junior University, Leland Stan- i 
ford, Cal. 

Carl W. Jungen, general manager Southern Pacific Steamship Line, Pier 49, North -/ 
River, New York, N. Y. 

Frank B. King, consulting marine engineer and naval architect, 1442 Rhode Island 
Avenue , Washington, D . C . 

Frank E. Kirby, naval architect, 609 Stevens Building, Grand River Avenue, 
Detroit, Mich. 

Samuel M. Knox, president New York Shipbuilding Co., Camden, N.J. 

R. H. Laverie, 17 State Street, New York, N. Y. 

James W. Lee, general manager Skinner Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., Balti- 
more, Md. 

Joseph H. Linnard, naval constnictor. United States Navy, University Club, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

William Livingstone, president Lake Carriers' Association, Detroit, Mich. 

Richard P. MacLaurin, president Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, 
Mass. 

Prof. Alexander J. Maclean,^ professor of naval architecture, Webb's Academy, 
Fordham Heights, New York, N. i . 

Henry A. Magoun,* vice president New York Shipbuilding Co., Camden, N. J. 
.. Capt. C. C. Marsh, Naval Reserve Office, Navy Yard, WaMdngton, D. C, 

Frank Martin, naval architect and surveyor, 52 Beaver Street, New York, N. Y. 

Eugene I. McAllister, consulting engineer and naval architect, 703 Central Building, 
Seattle, Wash. 

Prof. Geoige R. McDermott,^ School of Marine Construction, Sibley College, Cornell 
University, Ithaca, N. Y. 

J. A. McGregor, president Union Iron Works, San Francisco, Cal. 

Wentworth W. Meek, chief hull draftsman. Electric Boat Co., Groton, Conn. 

H. 0. Nicherson, general manager New England Navigation Co., Pier 19, North 
River New York N. Y. 

Lewis Nixon, 22 East Fifty-third Street, New York, N. Y. ' 

James V. Paterson,^ president Seattle Construction & Dry Dock Co., Seattle, Wash. 

Franklin Institute,^ Philadelphia, Pa. 

Cecil H. Peabody,^ professor of naval acrhitecture and marine engineering, Massfli- 
chusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass. 

Henry Penton, engineer and naval architect. Pen ton Building, Cleveland, Ohio. 

Antonio C. Pessano, president Great Lakes Engineering: WorlM, Detroit, Mich. 

A. A. Raven, president American Bureau of Shipping, 66 Beaver Street, New York, 
N. Y. 

H. H. Raymond, piesident American Steamship Association, Pier 36, North River, 
New York, N. Y. 

John Reid, naval architact and engineer, Whitehall Building, 17 Battery Place, New 
York, N. Y. 

1 Reply received . 



SAFETY OF UFE AT SEA, 119 

Richard H. Robinson,^ general manager Lake Torpedo Boat Co., Bridgeport, Conn. 
Prof. Herbert C. Sadler,^ professor of naval architecture and marine engineering 
niversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 

Charles L. Seabury, Gas Engine & Power Co., and Charles L. Seabury Co., Morris 
[eights, N. Y. 

K. P. Schwerin, vice president and general manager Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 
lood Building, San Francisco, Cal. 

George Simpson, naval architect, 24 State Street, New York, N. Y. 

Harry G. Slanner, president William Skinner & Sons* Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 
!x)cu8t Point, Baltimore, Md. 

Alfred G. Smith, general manager Ward Line, Pier 14, East River, New York, N. Y» 

Robert A. C. Smith, president American Mail Steamship Co., 100 Broadway, NeW 
York, N. Y. 

Somers N. Smith, 1744 North Sixteenth Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 

E. Piatt Stratton, American Bureau of Shipping, 66 Beaver Street, New York, 
N.Y. 

James Swan, New York Shipbuilding Co., Camden, N.J. 

Constructor David W. Taylor, United States Navy, room 174, Navy Department, 
Washington, D. C. 

Stevenson Taylor,^ naval architect and surveyor, 742 East Twelfth Street, New 
York, N.Y. 

Col. Robert M. Thompson, president Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engi- 
neers, 1607 Twenty-third Street, Washington, D. C. 

J. Bernard Walker,^ editor Scientific American, 361 Broadway, New York, N. Y. 

Herbert B. Walker, president Old Dominion Steamship Co., Pier 25, North River, 
NewYork, N. Y. 

James C. Wallace,* president American Shipbuilding Co., Cleveland, Ohio. 

William E. Waterhouse, naval architect and engineer, 15 Whitehall Street, N'ew 
York, N. Y. 

Rear Admiral R. M. Watt, United States Navy, Chief Bureau of Construction and 
Sepair, Navy Department, Washington, D. C. 

Charles P. Wetherbee, vice president and superintending engineer, Bath Iron 
Works, Bath, Me. 

George A. White, assistant general manager Hudson River Day Line, Desbrosses 
Street Pier, New York, N.Y. 

Ralph D. Williams, editor Marine Review, Cleveland, Ohio. 

F. W. Wood,* president Maryland Steel Co., Sparrow Point, Md. 

W. W. Wotherspoon, Yankee Salvage Association, 149 Broadway, New York, N. Y. 

Charles Skentlebery,* marine superintendent, New England Coal <& Coke Co., 
Shawmut Bank Building, Boston, Mass. 

Gen. George Uhler, chairman committee on lifeboats, Washington, D. C. 

Commander George F. Cooper, chairman committee on aids and perils to naviga- 
tion, Washington, D. C. 

Sent to editors of following publications: Marine Review, Cleveland, Ohio; Sea- 
men's Coast Journal, 44 East Street, San Francisco, Cal.; Nautical Gazette, 128 Water 
Street, New York, N. Y.; Fishing Gazette, 203 Broadway, New York, N. Y.; Pacific 
Marine Review, 709 Central Building, Seattle, Wash:; Master, Mate and Pilot, 80 
Broad Street, New York, N. Y.; Marine Journal, 17 State Street, New York, N. Y.; 
Journal of Commerce, 32 Broadway, New York, N. Y.; Daily Commercial News, 527 
Conunercial Street, San Francisco, Cal.; Shipping Illustrated, 116 Produce Exchange, 
New York, N. Y.; New York Maritime Register, 61 William Street, New York, N. Y.; 
London Times office, Windsor Arcade, Fifth Avenue and Forth-sixth Street, New 
York, N. Y.; Railway and Marine News, 216 Grand Trunk Pacific Dock, Seattle, 
Wash. 

W. Gatewood,* naval architect Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., New- 
port News, Va. 

De Courcy Majr, chairman New York Shipbuilding Co., Camden, N.J. 

J. W. Miller, vice president Cape Cod Construction Co., 43 Exchange Place, New 
York, N. Y. 

C. R. Norman, Maritime Association of the Port of New York, New York, N.Y. 

A. W. Preston, president United Fruit Co., Boston, Mass. 

H. C. Higgins, superintending engineer Old Dominion Steamship Co., New York, 

R. B. Bedford, Le Pietre & Co., 43 Exchange Place, New York, N. Y. (Also copy 
for Mr. Kaufman.) 



» Reply received. 



120 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Robert Curr, naval architect, Observatory Mariaggi Hotel, Port Arthur, Ontario, 
Canada. t 

James Donald, Fore River Shipbuilding Co., Quincy, Mass. I 

W. T. Webster, superintending engineer Clyde Line, Pier 36, North River, Ncw^ 
York, N. Y. 

L. Colhns, superintendent Ocean Steamship Co., Pier 36, North River, New YoA, 
N. Y. 

A. S. Hebble, superintending engineer Southern Pacific Co., Pier 49, East River, 
NewYork, N. Y. 

G. A. Binks, superintending engineer New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co., Pier 
J4, East River, New York, N. Y. 

G. C. Shepherd, superintending engineer American-Hawaiian Steamship Co.>| 
S Bridge Street, New York, N. Y. t 

A. A. Schantz,^ vice president and general manager Detroit & Cleveland Naviga^ 
^on Co., Detroit, Mich. 

George Webb, superintending engineer Baltimore Steam Packet Co., Baltimore, Md. 

J. F. Batty, superintending engineer Chesapeake Steamship Co., Baltimore, Md. 

J. K. Tumbull, superintending engineer New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co., 
pier 35, Atlantic Basm, Brrokljoi, N. Y. I 

H. C. Higgins, superintendmg engineer Old Dominion Steamship Co., Pier 25,1 
North River, New York, N. Y. . ^ 

Sent also to the following steamship companies: Chesapeake Steamship Co., CWe| 
Steamship Co., Consolidated Coal Co., Hartford & New York Transportation Oo-ii 
Maine Steamship Co., Mallory Steamship Co., Merchants & Miners' Transportatioil " 
Co.^ Metropolitan Steamship Co., New England Coal & Coke Co., New England Navfr 
gation Co., New York & Baltimore Transportation Co., New York & Cuba Mail Steam- 
ship Co., New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co., Norfolk & Washington Steamboat 
Co., Ocean Steamship Co., Old Dominion Steamship Co., Peninsular & Occidental] 
Steamship Co., Red "D" Line, Southern Steamship Co. = 

T. M. Combrooks,* engineer Maryland Steel Co., Sparrow Point, Md. 

W. G. Dickie, care New York Shipbuilding Co., Camden, N. J. (at present located 
there). 

George L. Craig, Craig Shipbuilding Co., Long Beach, Cal. 

James French, Lloyd s Registry of Shipping, 17 Battery Place, New York, N. Y. 

Donald Mathieson, superintending engineer and naval architect W. R. Grace & Co., 
Hanover Square, New York, N. Y. 

Elliot Snow, naval constructor, United States Navy, Cramp's Shipyard, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

Walter Ancker, superintendent floating equipment Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 
Camden Station, Baltimore, Md. 

William H. Pleasants, vice president and general manager Ocean Steamship Co., 
Pier 35, North River, New York, N. Y. 

P. A. S. Franklin, vice president of the International Mercantile Marine, 9 Broad- 
way, New York, N. Y. 

Hamburg- American Steamship Co., New York, N. Y. 

F. W. Mooney, general manager Porto Rico Steamship Co., 11 Broadway, New 
York, N. Y. 

Sent out June 18, 1913, to editors of the following papers: Machinery, 49 Lafayette 
Street, New York, N. Y.; American Machinist, 168 Fulton Street, New York, N. Y.; 
American Marine Engineer, 21 State Street, New York, N. Y.; American Ship- 
builder, 7 Coenties Slip, New York, N. Y.; Engineering Magazine, 140 Nassau Street, 
New York, N. Y.; Engineering News, St. Paul s Building, 220 Broadway, New York, 
N. Y.; Engineering Record, 239 West Thirty-ninth Street, New York, N. Y.; Engi- 
neering Review, 239 West Thirty-ninth Street, New York, N. Y. 

Sent out June 24, 1913, to presidents of the following shipbuilding companies: 
Petroit Shipbuilding Co., Wyandotte, Mich.; Buffalo Dry Dock Co., Buffalo, N. Y.; 
Chicago Shipbuilding Co. , Chicago, 111.; Cowles Shipyard. Co., Buffalo, N. Y.; Supe- 
rior Shipbuilding Co., Superior, Wis.; Johnson Iron Works, New Orleans, La.; Rive^ 
side Iron Works, Charleston, S. C; Pusey & Jones Co., Wilmington, Del.; Speddea 
Shipbuilding Co., Baltimore, Md.; Quintard Iron Works, New York, N. Y.; Atlantic 
Works, Boston, Mass.; Jas. Rees & Sons Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.; Des Moines Bridget 
Iron Works, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Milwaukee * Bridge Co., Milwaukee, Wis.; Chaiie* 
Barnes Co., Cincinnati, Ohio; Manitowoc Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., Manitowoc, 
Wis.; Dubuque Boat & Boiler Works, Dubuque, Iowa; Racine Boat Manufacturing 

1 Reply received. 



SAFETY OF UFB AT SEA. 121 

Co., Muskegon^ Mich.; Toledo Shipbuilding Co., Toledo. Ohio; Johnson Broe., 
Ferrysburg, Mich.; American Shipbuilding Co., Cleveland, Ohio; Howard Ship- 
yards Co., Jeffersonville, Ind.; American Bridge Co., Pittsburch, Pa.; New London 
Ship & Engine Co., Groton, Conn.; Willamette Iron & Steel Works, Pwtland, Oreg.; 
Merrill Stevens Co., Jacksonville, Fla.; T. S. Marvel Shipbuilding Co., Newburpi, 
1^. Y.; Skinner Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., Baltimore, Md.; Clinton Shipbuilding 
Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Staten Island Shipbuilding Co., Port Richmond, N. Y.; 
Mliott Machine Corporation, Baltimore, Md.; Cleveland Shipbuilding Co., Cleve- 
land, Ohio; Empire Shipbuilding Co., Buffalo, N. Y.; Globe Iron Wirka, Cleveland, 
Ohio; Great Lakes Towing Co., Cleveland, Ohio; Jenks Shipbuilding Co., Port 
Huron, Mich.; West Bay City Shipbuilding Co., West Bay City, Mich.; Downey 
Shipyard & Marine Co., foot Twenty-third Street and Twenty-fourth Street, Brook- 

- Sent out June 25, 1913, to commercial oi^anizations: Maratime Exchange, New 
Tork, N. Y. ; Chamber of Commerce, Boston, Mass. ; Maritime Exchange, Philadelphia, 
Pa.; Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco, Cal.; New Seattle Chamber of Commerce, 
Seattle, Wash.; Chamber of Commerce, Portland, Oreg.; Board of Trade, Augusta, 
He.; Board of Trade, Portland, Me.; Board of Trade, Manchester, N. H.; Board of 
Trade, Providence, R. I.; Chamber of Commerce, Wilinington, Del.; Board of Trade, 
Baltimore, Md. ; Chamber of Commerce, Mobile, Ala. ; Board of Trade, New Orleans, 
Xa.; Chamber of Commerce, Savannah, Ga.; Chamber of Commerce, Trenton, N. J.; 
Ouunber ol Commerce, Charleston, S. C; Commercial Association, Galveston, Tex. 
Sent also to the following naval constructors. United States Navy: Albert W. StiJil^ 
'Wilham J. Baxter, Lloyd Bankson, John G. Tawresey, Robert Stocker, Elliot Snow, 
Oeor^ H. Rock, Thomas F. Ruhm, Horatio G. Gillmor, John D. Beuret, Daniel C. 
Nuttu^, jr., William P. Robert, Thomas G. Roberts, Laurence S. Adams, Stuart 
Farrar Smith, William G. du Bose, Ernest F. Eggert, Henry Williams, Henry T. 
Wright, Guy A. Bisset, John E. Bailey, Henry M. (fleason, WilUam McEntee, William 
B. Ferguson, jr., John A. Spilman, Julius A. Furer, William B. Fogarty, Sidney M. 
Henry, Lewis B. McBride, John W. Woodruff, Clayton M. Simmers, Ross P. Schla- 
bach, George S. Radford, James L. Ackerson, Richard D. Gatewood, Isaac I. Yates, 
George C. Westervelt, Charles W. Fisher, jr., Holden C. Richardson, John H. Walsh, 
Edward C. Hamner, jr., Emory S. Land. 

[Appendix C— Answers to circular letter of June 14, 1913.1 

(Arranged in order of date of submission.] 

Wbbb Academy, 
Fordham Heights^ New York City, June 2Sy 1913. 

WoLiAM C. Redfield, Esq., 

Secretary Department of Corrvmerce, Washington^ D. C. 

Dbab Sir: Your circular on "Safety at Sea" received, and in reply to questions 
therein, beg to answer as follows: 

1. Law EUQOuld regulate for maximum draft and minimum freeboard at the proper 
position along ship's side and also minimum draft for sea voyage for all vessels and 
trim draft aft, draft forward, for some classes, especially those with engiue aft. 

2. If classification societies' rules for scantlings are proved correct by Government 
checks, then they should be made a law for all vessels as a minimum. Stability can 
not be fixed only for passenger vessels with slightly varying center of gravity's height, 
And for homogeneous caigoes in other vessels. 

Freeboards by societies are fixed only by appUcation from owners, excepting those 
with %ht superstructures, awning deck and shelter deck vessels, which are imperative. 

3. Yes, if found satis&tctory. 

4. Impossible to fix without calculation made for each vessel as to stability under 
the different heights of center of gravity of vessel and lading and trim. 

5. («) Classes Ilia and Illb are subdivided by water-tight bulkheads in length 
practically by Lloyds and other societies to suit respective trades, and only in some 
^stances can be improved on. 

(6) Easilv fixed practically. 

6. No rules can be formed, because of the variation of height of center of gravity for 
«teh vessel, but approximate line can be* fixed for vessel on a given trade. 

7. This can be aone for classes of vessels carrying a constant line of freight with full 
compartments or holds, passenger vessels with light freight, and vessels carrying freight 
nich as homogeneous cargoes and nonmovable cargoes. It can only be fixed ex- 
actly for vessels with fixed center of gravity, each center regulating range and trim, 
Mid free-water regulating the height of the center of gravity. 






122 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

8. Can not be fixed only by calculation to obtain necessary "safety height of center 
of gravity and trim.'' 

9. In some, yes; in others, no; depending on the trade they may be in. 

10. (a) Passenger vessels have "deck" continuous, others no. J 
(6) Certainly, where practicable. . . i 
(c) Yes; but in most vessels would be dangerous, being a question of stability and 

ai^le of heel if side is holed and easily determined by calculation. 

(a) Only "necessary " openings to be made; communication between compartment! 
certainly above deck. 

[e) All right. 
Yes. 
r) Yes. 

i) Not necessary in all vessels, but in case of faQure of (/) in la and lb. 
il. (a) Can only be fixed in height by question of trim when vessel is holed in 
side at different compartments and question of "roll" in seaway. 

(b) Can be placed anywhere if "fixed" not hinged, but otherwise as (a). 

(c) This can be done above deck. 

12. (a) In all passenger vessels, yes. 
^6) The higher the better, yes. 
(c) To the collision bulkheads where practicable. 

13. This could be done, but would not advise it for lots of reasons. 

14. Would like to meet the Secretary and Commissioner to explain some answers^; I 
etc., because of years experience abroad in this particular matter as well as in thia 
country. If you kindly state when and where I can have an interview at your con^ 
venience will gladly meet you. 

Yours, sincerely, Alex. J. Maclean. 



- 



The Lake Torpedo Boat Co., 

Submarine Torpedo Boats, 
Bridgeport, Conn., June 27, 191S. 
Chairman Committee on Questions 

Relating to Bulkhead Subdivision, ^ 

Room 174 f Navy Department, Washington, D. C. 

Sir: I have to reply to the circular communication from the Secretary of Commerce 
of June 14 as follows: 

In replying to the questions propounded I wish to say that I believe that the decision 
that would be arrived at by any competent committee, however small, the members 
of which were in a position to study the subject in detail and at length, would be better 
than one based on a compilation of numerous opinions more or less un weighed, front 
whatever sources of wisdom. 

I assume, therefore, that the idea in sending out the question was to obtain thereby 
possible new points of view to serve merely as a guide to a suitable committee in ite. 
work of investigation and decision, and that general answers will suffice. 

Question 1 : In my opinion this should be done for all classes of vessels mentioned. 
It is already done in ureat Britian, certainly for over-sea trading ships, though the 
requirements now in force in the British laws may leave some modifications desirable 
due to development and changes in types of ships since the enactment of such laws. 
The drawing of such a law should be done only aiter the most careful consideration of 
the various types and the conditions of service, so as to cause no undue interference 
with trade or the development of ship construction in the future. 

Question 2: To indicate comjjletely in laws standards of hull construction would 
involve such lengthy laws, require such frequent changes, and be so liable to lead to 
needless restriction m development that I do not believe such detail laws wise. 

To do so by regulation under general legal authority is another matter and would, 
on the face of it, seem wise, but the Government should be prepared to assume the 
expenditure necessary to provide the proper force to prepare and issue such regulation. 

The salaries paid by the Government for such positions should be such as to insure 
the caliber of man or men competent to exercise the enormous authoritjr that would 
be vested in them. If a body of men of the highest professional fitness, similar to the 
British Board of Trade, were established and suitably remunerated, I believe the 
control by regulation would be wise. 

I favor the control by regulation of rules of classification societies supplemented by 
some additional requirements rather than the issue of complete independent detail 
rules. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 123 

Qtiestion 3: This is answered in general under question No. 2 above. 
As the commercial success of the registration societies in the long nm depends on 
heir reputation for requiring adequate scantlings, fastenings, etc., they can with only 
i slight degree of supervision be trusted to determine structural features that will be 
«6ted oat in general service; but this does not necessarily apply to such items as bulk- 
leads, etc., which are for emergency use and do not ordinarily receive any adequate 
arying out in service. For such items the supervision should be more detailed and 
sxact. 

Question 4: Without wishing to be hypercritical, I believe this question is so framed 
te possibly to be misleading rather than enlightening. 

The blue-print sketch does not seem to agree with the questionpr as opoimded. Also, 
I believe the answer given must depend on several things not defined, for example: 
What is meant by a main compartment? 

The blue print and question seem based on transverse water-tight subdivision only 
Dr mainly, while longitudinal subdivision is hinted at. 

A main compartment in the two cases would be quite a different thing and the flood- 
tngthereof mi^ht have quite a different effect. 

The assumptions ncLade^ to my mind, imply that the bulkhead deck is water-tight and 
intact. In m^r opinion, if that is what.is meant, and if a main compartment is a com- 
plete thwartship section of a ship, in vessels of the usual passenger types, i. e., those 
laving one or more deck heights above the bulkhead deck, the per cent of reserve 
fjuo^rancy under the bulkhead deck for four swijoining main compartments in free com- 
munication with the sea need be very small, and the percentage for three compart- 
ments, or two compartments flooded, would follow from this. 

Assuming four adjoining compartments flooded, these compartments being such as 
will produce the maximum trim, the bulkhead deck should be so located that it will 
not be brought below the water line. If the ratio between draft and the length were 
practically constant for ocean-going vessels, the distance from the LWL to the bulk- 
tead deck amidships might be expressed as a fraction of the depth as suggested; but 
this ratio is not constant, especially for increasing lengths of vessels having a maximum 
service draft of 35 feet, whereas the importance of defining the height of the bulkhead 
deck increases rapidly with vessels of such great length on account of the great head to 
which bulkheads at the ends of the vessel would be subjected by only small angles of 
trim. 

Question 5: (a) It is only in comparatively recent years that the bulkheads have 
been as widely spaced as now obtain in cargo carriers. Therefore it is technically 
entirely possible to space them otherwise; whether to do so is an economical question 
, lather than a technical one. 

Personally on "this class of vessels, where the lives risked are professional largely or 

: Bolely, I should not go to the extremes of precaution that I should on others, and believe 

that bulkheads so spaced that two adjoining main compartments flooded puts the ship 

f in no worse condition than I have above recommended for passenger ship with four 

flooded would be ample provision. 

(6) These vessels, being primarily cargo vessels, have relatively small complements, 
and I believe an outfit of boats sufficient for all hands could be provided on each side 
without difliculty. 
Question 6: Perhaps not necessary, but most desfrable. 
It is no easy task, as the British committee found. 

Question 7: I think it advisable to so prescribe by regulation for Classes la, lb, Ila, 
lib, but do not believe the same requirements should hold for Classes Ilia, Illb, 
where the lives in question are those of professionals and the risk may be classed as a 
"risk of the trade.*' 
Question 8: For Classes la, lb, Ila, lib — ^four. 
For Classes Ilia and 1 1 lb — two. 

This is on the assumption that a main compartment means a complete transverse 
Bttbdivision of the ship. 

Question 9: Detail governmental rules for the construction of bulkheads are not, in 
my opinion, advisable. A requirement that all bulkheads or type bulkheads be sub- 
jected after building to actual water test under a head whose amount would bear rela- 
tion to the depth and size of vessel would be practicable and ample. The spacing of 
bulkheads could be controlled by prescribing the trim and reserve buoyancy to remain 
after damage. To attempt to state such spacing in feet and inches would be imprac- 
ticable. 

It is desirable that the test head be greater at the bow and stem than amidships. 
The regulations might require the test of one or two typical bulkheads to be selected, 
tfter construction, by the Government inspectors, or tests might be waived when the 
bulkheads were of equal scantlings and fastenings to other bulkheads t^at had passed 





124 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA, 

satis&ictory test under similar conditions of head and support. This would eiukb] 
the classification society to build and test typical bulkheads or to accumulate offici " 
sanctioned bulkhead tests, or the Government could sanction rules based on ac 
tested bulkheads by the process of interpolation. 

Question 10: (a) Theoretically it would be advisable to make the bulkhead d 
extend continuous fore and aft, but practical difficulties in way of machinery s 
particularly boiler rooms, exist. It would, I think, be possible to amply safe^ 
the ship while only requiring the bulkhead deck outsioe of machinery spaces, 
in that event the divisional machinery bulkheads should extend higher than 
bulkhead deck level. 

(6) I beUeve the addition of water-tight decks below the bulkhead deck desiiablel 
especially at the forward end of the vessel. 

In Types la, Ila, lb, lib such a requirement or provision would not work a haidshi 
in other types it might. 

(c) Fitting continuous or partially continuous fore and aft water-tight wing bi 
heads providing fuel spaces and at the same time water-tight compartments wo\ 
in my opinion, tend to preserve buoyancy in the event of damage b^ collid 
particularly an injury similar to that suffered by the Titanic^ if fitted with suitiU 
water-tight doors. These bulkheads are particularly valuable, as they are not 
nee ted to the side and are some distance from the side, so that an injury to the 
is Hkely to escape them. 

{d) The necessity for openings in the main transverse and lonoitudinal 
tight bulkheads, except bunker bulkheads, is not, in my opinion, due to 
reasons or questions involved in construction. It is more a question involving 1 
administration and operation of the vessel after completion. For this reason heaiii 
from vessel owners and seagoing men would be desirable. It is entirely feasil 
to operate a vessel with such intact bulkheads using the **up and over met' 
of intercommunication, but this would probably result in an increase in the operat 
force or in the provision of elevators for mcilitatmgtiie supervision over such operat 
or both. It therefore becomes a question of financial moment to the operating coi 
pany. With proper doors properly located as far as possible above &e inner bottonir 
most of the danger of such openings could be obviated. 

{e) I see no insuperable difficulty in having efficient water-tight hatches in th» 
bulkhead decks, as eeems to be implied by the tenor of the question. Should, how» 
ever, it be considered that the fitting of such hatches is too difficult, I believe it 
entirely practicable and essential to substitute water-tight trunks to the deck or 
decks overhead. 

(/) Where there are water-tight doors in water-tight bulkheads it is not neces^ 
sary that they be mechanically operated from the bridge. In many instances I thmk 
it desirable. In order to have it so operated it must be of the sliding type, whiitt 
with a properly organized and discipkned crew, I believe the swinging water-t%hft 
door is usually better. 

{g) In my opinion it is necessary that all water-tight doors in bulkheads be capaUa 
of operation at the door. 

{h) In my opinion it is not necessary that all water-tight doors be mechanically 
operated from the bulkhead deck, but this also is highly desirable. Such distaiiil 
operation would also necessitate sliding doors. 

Question 11: (a) The height of the lowest air ports or side Lights below the bulkhead 
deck should, in my opinion, be such that when the assumed damage or flooding oi 
the four adjacent main compartments occurs the bottom of the lowest side light would 
be at least 6 feet above this damaged load water Line. Any side light so located as to 
possibly come within 6 feet of such damaged load line should be fitted with a water- 
tight internal dead cover. 

(6) I think there should be at least one side light in each stateroom, or one fcflC 
each unit of passenger space equivalent to the average stateroom capable of being 
opened and of permitting the escape of people, but not of being too conveniently 
opened by anyone. In other words, the provision as suggested in (c) below of a key 
kept in a locked glass case with suitable instructions for its use would seem to cove* 
the question. 

(c) See paragraph (6) above. 

Question 12: (a) 1 do not consider it necessary to extend the double bottom tO 
the bulkhead deck provided the wing bulkheads are fitted; otherwise I consider 
it necessary. This, as the committee knows, is customary practice for war vessel* 
and has been adopted in at least two naval cargo carriers and substantially so on th^C 
Olympic as rebuilt. This type of construction is probably more expensive that tiWB 
conventional type of merchant construction, but should permit a reduction in scants 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 125 

■igB over the usual merohant practice, and with such reduction the difference in 
apenae would leiasen. 

{h) Having above recommended the extension of the inner bottom, or its ec^uiva- 
ent, the outer wing bulkhead, to the deck immediately above the load water line, I 
Lo not think it safe to extend the double bottom to the intermediate height suggested 
nthis question. 

(c) Theoretically speaking, I believe it desirable to extend the double bottom the 
|bU length of the ship, or as far as it is possible to extend it. Practically there are 
imits at bow and stern, but in these locations a water-tight Hat or flats can be sub- 
itituted. 

Question 13: I should not recommend any formal rules specifying the size of 
mdders, if by that is meant any hard and fast rule for fixing the area or shape, or 
w>1h, of the rudder. I do beueve, however, that the requirements that vessels 
AouM have a certain maximum turning circle, or tactical diameter at specified 
meeds is desirable. If such a requirement were made and vessels carried out the 
Inals necessary to insure their compliance therewith, the officer of the watoh, pos- 
jtoflsed of the data resulting, would be able to determine in an emergency whether he 
teoold clear an obstruction by putting over his helm. This is equivalent to the 
pnctice in vogue in all navies for the same purpose. 

■■- Question 14: There are two points in addition to those of the foregoing questions 
ivliich I believe should receive consideration as tending to increase the safety of lives 
iisea. Neither of these is original with me, but both, I believe, would be valuable 
Mditions. 
^The first of these is a floating detachable house or bridge. 

This, if worked out properly, would provide an addition to the present means of 

mg lives in the event ol the sinking of the ship. 

The second, and more important, is a provision for a compressed-air system for 

water from damaged compartments, similar to that installed on the U. S. S. 

and North Carolina ^ and being installed on the Nevada , Ohlakoma, and Penn- 

TOs would tend not only toward the saving of lives, but also toward the prevention 
«f the loss of the vessel herself. 

I This compressed-air system is such an easy and satisfactory solution of the general 
■fety of the ship, as to oe, in my opinion, tne most important single addition which 
cm be made to the safety of a well-constructed ship. 

By using the reenforced method, i. e., backing up decks and bulkheads, which 
jnay require severe pressure, by less pressure on the on side, the system can be applied 
^thout affecting at all extravagantly the cost of construction. Such a system is 
of application, cheap in first cost, and certain in action. On almost all passenger 
the air compressors and most of the piping necessary already exist. 
is system has the added advantage that it gives a method of demonstrating by 
originally the satbfactory tightness of the members and also at any time will snow 
hether the tightness of the ship has been maintained or destroyed by changes and 
' itions consequent to service. 

Such a system would have saved the Titanic^ and would give in most cases of marine 
anage a method of salvage ready at hand. 

I believe all vessels of Classes la, lb, I la, lib should be so fitted. 
Yours, very truly, 

R. H. M. Robinson, Genersd Manager. 



New York Shipbuilding Co., 

Camden, N. J., July 3, 1913. 
Re Secretary of Commerce, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: In reply to your circular of June 14, 1913, the New York Shipbuilding Co. 
■ttkes the following reply to the inquiries sent its several oflScials : 

(Juestion 1: It is oelieved that freeboard regulajion by law is advisable for seagoing 
VBnek and that ample data will be found already in use on which to base such regu- 
iMioBfl. 

Qaestion 2: It is believed that existing classification society standards of strength 
•6 adequate and will be kept adequate for the construction of all classes of vessels, 
ttdit is huiher believed to be impracticable to provide by law for such matters. 

Qaestion 3: While it may be possible to give oflScial recognition to the rules of a 
pioper classification society, such recognition could not be given to the exclusion of 
other forms of construction which might be equally good. There are so many factors 






126 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

entering into this question that it can not be given a direct answer, but might pro] 
be considered by a commission of shipowners and shipbuilders, who would 
recommendations on the subject. 

Question 4: It is a matter which should be answered by a commission. 

Question 5: (a) The present classification rules take care of this matter from.^ 
practicable standpoint. 

(6) It is not believed there is any difliculty about providing adequate lifel 
for all persons. 

Question 6: This should be answered by a commission. 

Question 7: This should be answered by a commission. 

Question 8: This should be answered jyy a commission. 

Question 9: This matter is now being fairly well taken care of by classificat 
rules, though the rules might properly be more complete. 

Question 10 (a, 6, c, rf, e): These questions can not be answered categorically, 
in most cases conditions are likely to modify requirements. 

(/)No. 



!?? ^^^- 



■ No. 

Question 11 (a) and (b): This should properly be answered by a conunissicHi. 

(c) It is not believed by us that these emergency openings are necessary in all 
altnough possibly advisable in certain types of vessels. 

Question 12: Answer to this question depends entirely upon circumstances, 
we do not see how any fixed rule can be made applying to all classes of vessels. 

Question 13: It is considered that many vessels are deficient iii rudder area, 
proper answer to this question should be formulated by a commission. 

Question 14: It is believed that nearly all the above joints should be taken caie< 
by a commission. It is pointed out that such a commission should use the best talc 
available in the country, and that proper funds must be available to compensate t 
people engaged in the work, if adequate results are to be obtained. It is sug^oBti 
that such a commission might be composed of three classes of men, viz, one-tniid^ 
be appointed by the Government, one-third appointed by representatives of 
owners, and one-third from representatives of shipbuilders: the commission to coi 
of six people, who will themselves appoint a seventh as chairman. 
Yours, respectfully, 

New York Shipbuilding Co., 
H. A. Magoun, Vice President. 



University op Michigan, 
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, ' 

Ann ArhoTy July 5, 191S* ■ 

Chairman Committee on Bulkheads, \ 

Room 174, Navy Department ^ Washington^ D. C. ^ 

Dear Sir: I inclose herewith answers to the various questions as per your circulfli 
letter of June 14. " 

Some of them I feel can not be answered without having a fairly large amount m 
data from calculations of different types, especially those referring to the percentagi 
of reserve buoyancy . 

ANSWERS to questions. 

1. Maximum draft and mimimum freeboard should be regulated by law. (Se^ 
also 2.) 

2. Classification societies' rules for scantlings, etc., provided they have a recognized 
standing and are approved by a board competent to judge of such standing, should h^ 
accepted as fulfilliiig the legal requirements. 

3. Yes. But I would suggest that any discretionary authority should not be in tib* 
hands of a "congressional committee." 

4. Without complete investigation I do not care to answer this offhand. TM 
amount of ** reserve buoyancy" under the various conditions would have to vary no^ 
only with type of vessel, but also with arrangement of superstructures above 1W 
bulkhead deck, and also with the size of vessel, etc. 

5. (a) I think that a practical subdivision of vessels in Classes Ilia and Illb f^ 
possible for various types, but in the nature of their service need not be of the ^^ 
character as for ** passenger" types. 

(6) It should be possible to provide for ample boat capacity. 



SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 127 

\ 6. For certain specified types this could be done, but it would not be advisable to 
iRUike the conditions so rigia that they would have to be followed in all cases when it 
can be shown that equivalent safety is obtained. 

7 and 8. The maximum number of adjacent compartments that could be flooded 
inight be fixed by law, provided that proper consideration to type of vessel and class 
<d service is given. 

* In general, it does not appear necessary in any case to extend the number beyond 
two or in an extreme case to three, especially if proper attention is paid to the points 
involved in some of the following questions. 

In the case of cargo vessels one compartment would seem to be sufficient. In lake 
and river vessels no regulations would appear necessary. 
^ 9. Rules for the construction of bulkheads should be prescribed. 

10. (a) Bulkhead deck should extend fore and aft whenever possible. 

^ (6) Water-tight flats at ends below bulkhead deck, in any case as far as the peak 
bulkheads, should be fitted. 

(c) Wing compartments desirable in machinery space, especially in the case of 
passenger vessels. 

(cf) Bulkheads should be kept intact to bulkhead deck as much as possible, with 
minimum number of doors. 

e) Water-t^ht trunks advisable wherever possible. 

n Mechanical operation of water-tight doors from bridge desirable but not abso- 
tely necessary, especially in case of cargo vessels. 
(a) Water-tight doors should be capable of being operated at the door. 

(a) Not absolutely necessary. 

11. (a) Sidelights about 3 feet above load line amidships and 8 to 10 feet at bow. 

(b) Lowest row should be fixed. Row above might be opening lights. 

(c) No. Special oval escape ports should be provided for each compartment. 

12. (a) No. Wing bulkheads as above preferable. Not necessary in cargo vessels. 
(6) Advisable to extend the double bottom above the turn of the bilge, about twice 
e height of the floors amidships, 
(c) rouble bottom should extend as far forward and aft as possible. 

13. Advisable to suggest approximate sizes of rudders fof different types, but not 
to fix the same absolutely. 

Yours, very truly, Herbert 0. Sadler. 



L 



The Pacific Coast Co., 
New York Shipbuilding Co., 

10 Wall Street, New York, N. Y., 

Camden, N. /., July 5, 191S. 
Chairman Committee on Questions 
Relating to Bulkhead Subdivision, 

Room 17 4 i Navy DepartTnent, Washington, D. C. 

Sm: Herewith find my answers to the questions contained in the Department of 
Conmierce circular letter dated June 14, 1913. These answers are all that 1 find 
possible without preparing illustrative plans of types of vessels whose safety could 
only be insured by sudi methods as could only be shown by plans. I have, however, 
sabmitted such answers as the committee could reasonably expect from experts who 
are expected to give opinions on a highly technical subject. 

SAFETY AT SEA. 

LiB^Ues to certain questions asked by the Dei)artment of Commerce in its circular letter under date of 
' June 14, 1913.] 

Question 1: As to the advisability of providing by law or regulation a maximum 
draft and minimum freeboard for all classes of vessels. 

• A large part of the world's ocean commerce is now conducted under freeboard regu- 
ktions, and it lies at the root of the inquiry now being made as to safe conditions 
I m the structure of the ship itself. Freeboard regulations have been adopted and 
enforced by nearly all the maritime nations except the United States. As the great 
iulk of the shipping of this country is engaged in lake and coastwise trade, freeboard 
regulations would have to be specially framed so as to meet the requirements of the 
trade in which the vessel is engaged. There is, for instance, a large tonnage on the 
Pacific coast engaged in carrying lumber. These vessels carry from 60 to 70 per cent 
of their cargo above the weather deck and often with no freeboard except that provided 




128 SAFETY OP UFB AT BEA. 

by a forecastle and short poop . Msmv of these vessels carry passengers aad tliere should 
be some law that would require a hull so loaded to have a certain amount of freebc 
but that "freeboard " should be different for a lumber-laden vessel from what it 8h< 
be for another vessel carrving a cargo heavier than water and all under deck. As it 
now, the owner is the sole judge of what constitutes safe loading, and the desire 
large earnings often leads to dangerous conditions of loading. 

Question 2: As to the advisaoility of providing by law or regulation standards 
hull construction, and how far should the rules of classification societies be 
in matters pertaining to scantlings, structural arrangement, stability, and freeboanL 

The preisent method of building according to some one of the classification sodetifii^ 
rules is, in my opinion, much preferable to building under Government r^iulatiooft. 
The whole shipping of the world is now built under these rules, the owner selee:"' 
the society he prefers. These societies give a definite character to a vessel and 1 
character is accepted by the merchant who ships his ^oods in her. It is also accepted 
by the insurance companies or underwriters, who insure both the vessel and hfl^f 
cargo. These rules have been the growth of many years' experience, the society 
surveyors being continually on the watch for weak spots in construction and repoi 
them to the h^uis of their societies. The ablest constructors are continually at woi 
on these rules, so that such societies as Briti^ Lloyds, whose rules have been receni 
revised, leaves nothing to be desired for the present class of vessels and an 
new is very cautiously adopted. Classification societies do not, however, r^ 
stability and freeboard. Stability is a matter of design and rests witii the ownflr*^ 
and the designer. The owner usually states what he wants and it depends upon the 
designer whether he gets it or not. Freeboard should be regulated by law, provisioie 
being made for tlie various types of vessels. | 

Question 3: As to the rules of classification societies being given official recognition' 
by a department of the Government. * 

In my opinion, it would not be wise to give Grovemment recognition to any or all| 
of the classification societies' rules. Some of them may not be as ^ood as other^ 
but under them all very fine vessels are being built. They are all striving to perfedl 
tiieir rules in order to have preference with those who take insurance risks on the 
vessels built under the&e rules. The Government should require that passenger 
vessels for ocean service should be built under the rules of some one of the standaul' 
societies. 

Question 4: As to reserve buoyancy necessary in any given case. 

This can not be stated without detailed investigation into the particular case given. 
The British bulkhead committee in 1891 recommended a margin of safety line, this 
to be a factor of the depth. The present committee will, no doubt, have some new 
information bearing on this question in their expected report. The number of com- 
partments that may be open to the sea will depend upon the dimensions of the vessel 
m question, trade, and class of cargo, etc., wnich means that each vessel m.ust con- 
tinue to be a special study in herself as to meeting required conditions. All naval 
architects know that much more protection can be given to passenger shi|>s than has 
been the rule. Practical and financial considerations often place the limit on what 
can be done. Strength of the structure and stability in damaged condition impose 
certain restrictions which can not be ignored in all bulkhead regulations. 

Question 5: (a) As to the practical degree or closeness of transverse bulkhead 
subdivision. 

The classification societies' rules now provide for transverse bulkheads about aiV 
close as practical arrangements for handling cargo will permit. As this questi09 
refers to cargo steamers carrying a limited number of passengers, my answer would bo 
to design such a vessel with as many compartments as the class of freight and the 
means of handling will permit. If such a vessel is trading between fixed points and 
the means of handling freight is on shore and not on the ship, then make the compsat^ 
ments as numerous as will secure the maximum of safety sought, but if this can not bfi 
done and the number of passengers is not too great, then (6) boats could be fitted cxm 
each side of the vessel sufficient to carry all on board. 

Question 6: For all classes, except Ilia and Illb, it could be done, but how it ia **> 
be done should be left to the owner and his naval architect, who should submit theic 

elans of subdivision with margin of safety line for the vessel tliey propose to build, ih^ 
department of Commerce, through competent officers, to pass upon such plans. 
Question 7 : As to the advisability of prescribing by law or regulation, for each of tlL€ 
classes named, the maximum number of adjacent main compartments which, undol 
the most unfavorable conditions of stowage and weather, could be flooded without 
imperiling the safety of the vessel. 

This would have to be done if any good is to come out of the proposed investigation.! 
and the committee referred to should be charged with the duty of drawing up sucls 
reflations which, when approved and found practical, should nave the force of law- 



SAFETY OF UFE AT SEA. 129 

ueetion 8: Any answer to this question, not based on careful figurine of a supposed 

i for each type, would be of no value. Sample cases should be worked out oy the 

imittee to which this important duty is to be assigned. 

tuestion 9: The latest nues of the classification societies are perfectly satisfactory 

water-ti^t buUdieads. The writer has just had some tested at higher heads than 

uld be possible under any condition of flooding at sea. 

Question 10, for (a), (6), and (c): Answer to No. 8 is all that can be given without 

iiring out special cases. 

[d) These openings should be avoided where possible and special arrangementa 

ide where they can not be avoided. 

(c) Trunks can, in many instances, be fitted between decks and would in many 

ses be a feature in plans for safe subdivision. 

(/) Yes; or from some central station. 

(?) Yas. 

(a) Not always necessary. 

Question 11: As to the fitting of air ports or side lights below the bulkhead deck. 

In the larger types of modem pjjissen^er vessels with artificial ventilation and elec- 

vc lights there should be no opening lights below the bulkhead deck. The glass in. 

ledughts should be very heavy, of tough gla-ss with a wire mesh cast in the plate. 

(a) Fixed lights below the bulkhead deck should be not less than 8 feet above the 
id water line forward aud aft to follow the shear line. 

(b) Side lights that can be opened to be 5 feet above the bulkhead deck, 

(f) From (quarters below the bulkhead deck there should be ample provision for 

cape by stairways to the decks above through trunks or open wells according to the 

»ign. 

Question 12: From rather an extended experience with vessels that have run on 

cks or coral reefs, I believe that every vessel navigating waters where there are 

cks to be struck or reefs to run on should have a double bottom from end to end. 

ith as many compartments as there are bulkheads. That the double bottom should 

:tend at least to the upper turn of the bilge. 

Question 13: I do not consider it advisable to have any rules specifying the size of 

dders. All shipowners desire vessels that maneuver promptly. Rudder areas 

ive increased of late, and most high-powered vessels leave little to be desired in 

lis respect. 

Question 14: There is little to be added to the foregoing answers, as the questions 

»ver the whole field very effectively. Of course no new rules having the force of 

w ^ould be made operative on existing vessels or those under construction. 

Respectfully submitted. 

G. W. Dickie. 

Seattle Construction & Dry Dock Co., 

Seattle, Wash., July 11, 1913. 
[an. William C. Rbdfield, 
Secretary of Commerce, Washington, D. C. 

Bear Sir: Conforming to your request, I have the pleasure of submitting the 
lUowin^ replies to the (^[uestions contained in your letter of the 14th ultimo. 
Question 1: In my opinionj it is advisable to prescribe, by competent board of 
iperts constituted by law, minimum freeboard for all commercial vessels. It would 
ot be advisable to prescribe maximum draft for vessels according to classes. The 
raft for each vessel would be determined by the required freeboard. 
Question 2: I am strongly opposed to the regulation of hull construction according 
fixed standards. Sucn metnods would impose unwarranted restraints upon the 
hipbuilder and shipowner and would retard improvement in ship coustniction and 
liscourage the enterprise of shipowners. I am of the opinion that there is only one 
'"y by which the design of commercial vessels may be properly supervised by Gov- 
nunent^ and that is through a technical board such as 1 nave referred to in reply 
i» question 1. Plans of proposed vessels coidd be submitted for approval to sucn a 
Nttd and passed upon their merits. 

Question 3: If the department of the Government referred to in your question were 
idvised by a thoroughly qualified technical committee or board, the rules of the 
i^sification society under which it was proposed to build a vessel would be dealt 
•ith in passin||[ upon the design. The said department, however, might, at its dis- 
*etion, recognize rules of classification societies as satisfactory, but should not bind 
ither shipbuilder or owner by such rules. The board would necessarily be guided 
>y the past experience of the mercantile marine of all nations, reflected as it is in 

38444—14 9 



130 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

the rules of the classification societies, and would have also the benefit of the expm 
«nce of the shipbuilder who submitted the design for approval. 

Question 4 : In answer to this question, it is my opinion that the minimum 
of buoyancy under bulkhead deck, as you define it and illustrate it in the blue prini 
^Mjcompanying your letter, should be 3 per cent, applying to all of tiie vessels i 
ouestion and on the assumption stated in your question. It should be obi 
that the volume of the vessel open to the sea which would bring the draft to the 
^ safety line would be the same no matter into how many compartments that vol 
were subdivided, and encouragement to subdivide that volume into more than 
compartments should be given. It would probably be foimd impracticable, h 
«ver, to divide that volume into more than tnree compartments in any vessel. 

Question 5 (a), for Classes Illa and Illb: Transverse subdivision should d 
upon the character of the service of the vessel. If such vessels are to carry p 
they should be subdivided so that when any two adjacent compartments lo: 
any one compartment aft of midships were flooded the vessel would not be 8ubm< 
beyond the margin of safety line. For purely freight-carrying vessels there sh _ 
be required a collision bulkhead, and aft peak bulldiead, a bulkhead at each end 
the engine-room boiler space. There is no possible doubt that certain types 
steamers, for example steamers in the lumber trade, would be seriously handicap; 
if further subdivided. 

(6) It is practicable to provide boat capacity at davits on both sides of the v 
for all persons on board steamers not carrying passengers. On the freight s 
carrying a few passengers and subdivided as suggested above, it would not be 
sonable to require the total statutory boat capacity on both sides of the vessel. 

Question 6: It is not necessary and it is inadvisable to formulate and prescril 
Tules and curves fixing the margin of safety line for any of the classes referred to. 

Question 7: It is advisable to prescribe by regulation the minimum, not the mazi< 
inum, number of adjacent main compartments which under the most unfavorab^ 
conditions of stowage and weather (to be defined) might be open to the sea or flooded^ 
without submeiging the margin of safety line. 1 

Question 8: The minimum number of compartments prescribed for the sevewfl 
classes should be — , 

Class la. Any three adjacent compartments, excluding the engine compartmem 
and two adjacent compartments, if the engine compartment were one of them. 1 

Class lb. The same as Class la. 

Class Ila. Any two adjacent compartments. .J 

Class lib. Any two adjacent compartments. ' 

Class Ilia (freight and passenger steamers). Any two adjacent compartments forwarl| 
or any one coinpartment aft. ■ 

Class Illb. Same as Class Ilia. 

Class Ilia (freight only). One compartment as follows: Fore peak or aft peak or 
engine room or boiler room. 

Class Illb (freight only). The same as "Class Ilia, freight only." 

In addition to the above, vessels carrying passengers in inland waters should ba 
subdivided as required for Class Ilia carrying passengers. 

Question 9: Rules for construction and spacing of bulkheads are not necessary- 
The department technical committee would pass on the spacing, scantlings, andl 
stiffening of the bulkheads under the general requirements as to the subdivision in 
each case. 

Question 10: (a) The bulkhead deck need not be continuous fore and aft. The 
provisions already suggested secure all that is required. The bulkhead deck should! 
oe merely the deck to which the water-tight bulkheads extend and should be water- 
tight, including the hatchways, to prevent the water flowing into tlie vspaces below it, 
but should not be required to be water-tight under pressure from below; that is to say, 
the bulkhead deck should not be required to be a tank top in any sense. 

(6) Water-tight flats below the bulkhead deck should not be recjuired. Such deckH 
in case of damage above them would be likely to be more dangerous than otherwise 
owing to the maintenance of a large part of the buoyancy of the compartment at th6d 
flame time that the area of the load-water plane provided by the compartment wereij 
abolished. 

(c) Wing bulkheads abreast the boilers and engines should be encouraged but should 
not be required. In case wing bulkheads are fitted, they ought to be independent of 
the side of the ship proper or should be attached to the side by members which would 
be easily bucklea m case of collision or damage to the outside of the ship in their 
vicinity and should not be able to transmit to a dangerous extent the force of the 
collision to the wing bulkhead. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 131 

r) Only the necessary openings in the bulkheads should be allowed. Doorways 

necessary in the shaft alley bulkheads and other bulkheads for the proper service 

be ship and rigid rules can not properly be made. 

j) SatiBfactory water-tight hatches can be fitted to the bulkhead deck. Such 

ches need not be tight under pressure from below. Their function should be to 

vent the sea entering the intact compartment adjoining the damaged compartment. 

mks to the decks above the bulkhead deck would be a serious nuisance except in 

icial cases. 

f) Water-tight doors on bulkheads need not be operated from the bridge, but each 

Ikhead door should be operated from the bulkhead deck. 

[y) It iB necessary to requu'e the bulkhead doors be operated at the doors themselves. 

[h) It is necessary that all wateivtight doors in bulkhead be mechanically operated 

)m the bulkhead deck. 

Question 11: (a) Side lights or port lights are necessary below the bulkhead deck. 

le lowest tier should be at least 4 feet above the deep-load line. 

The suggestion to have the lights operated by keys kept in glass case is undesirable. 

le spanners for opening the port lights should be kept imder the control of the chief 

ic^ and used only on instructions from him. 

(6) They should be capable of bein^ opened. 

(c) Side lights should not be reqmred as a means of egress from compartments. 

urge li^ts close to the water ought to be discouraged . Over 12 inches is imnecessary . 

Question 12: (a) I do not consider it .either necessary or advisable to extend the 

uble bottom to the underside of the deck immediately above the load line. 

(6) I consider it advisable to extend double bottom above the upper turn of the 

Ige. It would be amply sufficient to extend it to height above the oase line equal 

twice the depth of the double bottom at the center line of the vessel. 

(c) The double bottom ought to extend all fore and aft between the afterpeak and 

"epeak bulkheads. 

Question 13: The area of the rudder could be taken into consideration by the sug- 

8ted technical committee of the department, but rules specifying the sizes of the 

dders are not advisable. 

Question 14: In my opinion transverse subdivisions is the most effective means of 

creasing the safety of ships at sea and I should deprecate any attempt at legislative 

Dvisions for enforcing double skins in ships or even wing bulkheads. In the largest 

asels the introduction of wing bulkheads abreast of boiler and engine compartments 

luld always be desirable ana would seldom cause objectionable interference with 

B proper arrangement of the boilers or engines. The engine and boiler compart- 

mts being in high-class passenger steamers, the largest compartments might be 

vantageously protected by the wing bulkheads, but the spaces inclosed between 

e wing bulkhead and the skin of the ship must be made available for coal bunkers 

oil bunkers; in the case of coal, doors would be required, and in such case the doors 

ould be operated by power in order that they might be forced through obstructions 

ch as coal which might be lodged in the doorway or carried under me doorway by 

e inrush of water in event of damage. 

Yours, very truly, J. V. Paterson. 



The Franklin iNSTrruxE op the State op Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia, July 11, 1913. 
he Secretary of Commerce, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sib: I have the honor to acknowledge your invitation of June 14 to the Franklin 
utitute to formulate answers to certain questions relating to the bulkhead subdivision 
f vessels and other structural features affecting the safety of ships at sea. 
Aa Chief Constructor Washington L. Capps, Naval Constructor David W. Taylor, 
idifr. James Donald, all members of this institute, are acting on or with your com- 
ittee, it is not felt that we could find in our membership another committee whose 
(vice would be of more value than that you will have from the above-named 
Qtlemen. 

I am, your very obediant servant, 

R. B. Owens, Secretary. 



1 



132 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Scientific American, 

361 Broadway, New York, N. K, July 15, Wlh. 
Hon. William C. Redfield, 

Secretary Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: Oh my return from a lengthy stay in Europe, during which I was quii 
out of touch with my correspondeuoe, I find your favor of June 14, containing a " 
of questions relating to the "Bulkhead subdivision of vessels, etc.'* 

In thanking you for your complimentary reference to my book, An Unsin 
Titanic, I wish to state that I am not a naval architect, although I have made a 
study, in a broad way, of the development of ocean steamships for the past 26 y« 
and have always felt that naval architects, or rather steamship owners, were pa * 
too little attention to "safety" elements in the construction of ships, and espec 
of passenger ships. 1 beg to inclose my answers to the questions proposed in 
memorandum. j 

SAFETY AT SEA— ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. 

Question 1: I am of the opinion that maximum draft and minimum freeb<Mii|[ 
should be prescribed for all classes of vessels. 

Question 2: The Grovemment should require that all passenger-carrying vc 
shall conform in their hull construction and in all matters pertaining to scant 
structural arrangement, stability, and freeboard with the rules of some n 
registration society. 

Question 3: The Government should select that registration society whose ruleai 
affecting safety most nearly conform to its requirements, suggest such changes^ 
the rules as it considers necessary, and, if these be made, the society should recmi 
Federal recognition, as suggested. ^ ' 

Question 4: When any two adjoining main compartments are in free communiciitl 
tion with the sea, under the most unfavorable conditions of stowage of said comp8urft« 
ments, Classes la- and lb sliould have 12 per cent of buoyancy, and Classes Ila and 
lib 10 per cent of buoyancy. 

When any three adjoining main compartments are in free communication with the 
sea, as in the preceding condition, Classes la and lb should have about 8 per cent 
of buoyancy and Classes Ila and lib should have about 7 per cent of buoyancy. 

When any four adjoining main compartments are in free communication with the 
sea, as in the preceding conditions, Classes la and lb should have about 4 per cent d 
buoyancy and Class Ila and Class lib, 3 per cent of buoyancy. 

Question 5: In classes Ilia and Illb, the present bulkhead subdivision is probacy 
all that can reasonably be asked. I would sug!?est, however, that the bulkheads tf 
the forward and after end of the machinery spaces be carried lip, where this is ]m«c- 
ticable, to the top deck. 

Ample boat capacity should be provided in Classes I Ila and Illb for all peisonC 
on board. 

Question 6: Rules and curves should be formulated and prescribed which will fiji 
the margin of safety line for vessels in the classes named. 

Question 7 : The maximum number of adjacent main compartments which under the 
most favorable conditions of stowage and weather could be flooded without imperiling 
the safety of the vessel should be prescribed by law for all of the classes named. 

Question 8: In my opinion the maximum number of compartments which shoulc 
be prescribed for under the conditions stated under question 7 is for Classes la, Il>: 
Ila, lib, four compartments, and for Classes Ilia and Illb, two compartments. Ii 
all of these classes in cases where flooding takes place at vhe bow, the number should l>€ 
increased by one, or say five, adjoining compartments at the bow, for ships of Claaseii 
la, lb, Ila, lib, and three adjoining compartments at the bow for Classes Ilia and Illbj 

Question 9: Rules for construction and spacing of bulkheads should be include^ 
in the rules of the classification society, officially recognized by the Government, a* 
suggested in answers to questions 2 and 3. 

Question 10: (a) The bulkhead deck should be made continuous throughout th.* 
full length of the vessel. 

(6) Water-tight flats should be fitted below the bulkhead deck at the forward end oi 
the vessel. 

(c) Continuous water-tight win^ bulkheads should be fitted throughout the boile^ 
spaces and the engine rooms, and m Classes la and lb an inner skin should be carried 
from the boiler spaces forward to the collision bulkheads, this skin extending a fe^ 
feet above the water line. 

(d) Openings in bulkheads should be as few as are consistent with the operating 
necessities of the vessel. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 133 

(«) Water-tight trunks should be fitted from the bulkhead decks to the decks over- 
bold. 



if) Operation from the bridge is advisable iu la and lb classes. 

(?) ^. 
(J) Yes. 

Question 11: (a) Air ports and side lights should not be fitted nearer to the load 

^initer line than 8 feet forward, 7 feet aft, and 6 feet amidships. 

(6) The lowest tier of side lights forward should be fixed and covered by protective 

jflnUngs. Those amidships and aft should have swing lights; but all such lights 

Sbonla be provided with water-tight port plates. 

' (c) Where practicable this suggestion should be followed. 

' • Question 12: (a) This should be done in Classes la, lb, Ila, lib. 

;^: (o) For Classes Ilia and Illb the double bottom should be extended to a height 

*1ibove the base line, equal to twice the depth of the double bottom at center line of 

TSBsel amidships. 

U) The double bottom should be carried throughout the full length of the ship. 

Question 13: The size of rudders should be specified and they should represent a 

I ^tatain percentage of the longitudinal plane below water. 

[ Question 14: It is my belief that the most effective method of protecting the stability 

iflf ^ps is one that is not referable to any of the above quedtions. I believe that the 

jest method of protection for Classes la, lb, Ila, lib, would be to make the deck 

JBunediately above the overhead coal bunkers completely water-ti^ht throughout the 

M length of tiie ship. Usually in the largest passenger ships this is the first deck 

fibove the water line. All openings from this deck, such as boiler-room uptakes^ 

Cttgo hatches, etc., should be carried up to the top deck. The water-tight deck above 

nferred to should be made of sufficient strength to stand a water pressure equal to that 

i exerted upon the bottom of the ship at normal draft. In case of serious inj ury affecting 

lour, or even more compartments, the ship would settle until it floated upon this deck 

a second inner bottom. 

J. Bernard Walker. 



Villa Axelhus, 
Rungsted, Denmark, July 17, 191S> 
Chairman Committee on Questions 

Relating to Bulkhead Subdivision, etc.. 

Room 17 4 J Ncpvy Department , Washington, D. C. 

Sir: In reply to the questions submitted in circular letter of June 14, 1913, from 
&e Secretary of the Department of Commerce, I have pleasure in making the following 
itatements: 

1. A maximum draft and minimum freeboard should be prescribed by law or 
legulation for all classes of vessels. 

2. The requirements to scantlings and structural arrangements should be left entirely 
to IJie-classincation societies of recognized standing to determine. (The classification 
■odeties referred to in the following are only 8U(!h as are of recognized high standing, a 
question to be decided by the respective governments.) 

The requirements to freeboard are provided for under 1, but the classification 
societies may with advantage be empowered to assign it. No rules directly regulating 
the stability should be given. 

3. The classification societies can safely be trusted to give suitable rules and should 
be left as free in their action as possible. 

8. It does not appear necessary or advisable to fix a ** margin of safety line" by law. 
7. It appears advisable to prescribe by law the minimum number of adjacent main 

compartments which can be nooded without danger to the ship under the most unfavor- 
iUe conditions. 

9. The rules for the construction of water-tight bulkheads should be left to the classi- 
fcition societies to decide. The spacing of bulkheads appears to be implied in the 
ides which may be adopted under 7 and 8. 

10. Vessels of Class la: 

(a) The bulkhead deck should be continuous fore and aft. 

(6J A water-tight deck should be fitted forward of machinery spaces below the bulk- 
WW deck on about mid-draft. 

(c) Side-bunker bulkheads are of great value in point of safety, but where the inner 
Bottom is not continued up along the side an intact water-tight wing bulkhead worked 
«ane 6 to 8 feet from the side appears preferable.* Such wing bulkheads should have 
00 doors in them, only manhole covers. 

1 Applies, In particular, to vessels of the largest size. 



134 SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 

(d) No doors should be fitted in main transverse bulkheads and in longitudinal 
bulkheads — only bunker doors where necessary. If doors must be fitted they 
be placed on a high level. 

(e) Water-tight trunks should be fitted round such hatch openings in the buUdif 
deck as are always or habitually open. These trunks to be carried to the deck 
above the bulkhead deck, except forward, where they should be continued for at 
two deck heights abcfVe the bulkhead deck. Other openings to have water-i 
hatch covers. 

(/) and (h) Mechanical operation of water-tight doors appears necessary only for 
in the main bulkheads. The mechanical operation should be controllable from 
bridge. Control from the bulkhead deck seems less important. 

(g) All water-tight doors in bulkheads should be capable of operation at the door. 

11. Air ports and side lights fitted below the bulkhead deck constitute a danger, 
capable of being opened. 

12. Vessels of Class la: 
(a) and (6)* The double bottom should everywhere extend to the deck immed 

above the load water line except where an intact wing bulkhead is fitted, which 
take its place. Forward of machinery spaces the inner bottom (or wing bulkh< 
should extend to the bulkhead deck. 

(c) The double bottom should extend from the collision bulkhead forward to 
Btiiffing-box bulkhead or similarly located bulkhead aft. 

13. A minimum steering capacity might with advantage be prescribed, and ini(M| 
be specified by requiring that the ship shall turn in a circle with a diameter whidfl 
bears a certain relation to the length. 

The questions omitted are such as I do not feel prepared to answer. I shall, JM. 
further illustration of my views on these questions, refer to: ^ 

1. My papers on this subject in the Transactions of the American Society of Navi^ 
Architects and Marine Engineers, 1904, 1909, and 1910. 

2. Articles in London Engineering of June 18, 1909, and May 24 (?), 1912. 

3. Discussion on a paper by Mr. Bruhn on this subject. Institution of EngineerflP 
and Shipbuilders in Scotland. Spring, 1913. 

4. Discussion on the paper of Mr. Hillhouse on Safety of Life at Sea. Institution o^ 
Naval Architects. Summer meetings in Glai^ow, 1913. 

Respectfully, 

William Hovgaard, 
Professor of Naval Design and Construction, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology ^ Boston^ Mass, 



The William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co., 

Office of the Naval Architect, 

Philadelphia, July 2S, 1913, 
Secretary op the Department op Commerce, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: Please find herewith answers to questions propounded by you relative to safety 
of life at sea. 

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 

Question 1 : A law or regulation should be made prescribing the maximum draft and 
the minimum freeboard for seagoing vessels. This to be similar in effect to the PUm- 
eoll marking in England, but simplified so that such marking can be readily and accu- 
rately anticipated at the time the design is prepared. 

Question 2: It is not considered necessary to provide by law for standards of hull 
construction, as rules of registration societies already give exhaustive requirements 
for vessels building under survey and classification. It might be well, however, 
to require that all vessels carrying passengers for hire should have their scantling* 
equal to the rules of some well and favorably known registration society. Rule* 
for bulkhead stiffening and their spacing as laid down by the United States Govern- 
ment should be modified so as to allow the approval of bulkheads constructed it* 
accordance with the rules of such registration societies. 

Question 3: It would seem sufficient for the Government to name the societies 
whose rules are satisfactory for the proper construction of passenger vessels. 

Question 4, Class la: Foiu* or five per cent reserve buoyancy. 

Class lb: Three to four per cent reserve buoyancy. 



pst 



SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. l35 

Classes Ila, lib: If these classes of vessels are fitted with bulkheads so that the 
^st three compartments from the bow, or any other two adjacent compartmentSf 
2KD. be laid open to the sea and float with an immersion nowhere greater than within 
I loot of the bulkhead deck the vessel should be considered safe. 
f^ (6) and (c) Is asking rather too much of the shipowner, except that the first three 
||D9Dipar1anents from the bow should be considered as damaged. 
Vc (^estion 5, Classes Illa and Illb: To ask in these classes of vessels a greater sub- 
division of caigo spaces by bulkheads than the standard classification societies require 
iMmld drive many coasting vessels out of business. Carrying lifeboats at davits 
mt each side of the vessel, with a capacity of boats on each side for all persons on 
Board, seems sufficient provision for safety of life. 

* Question (a) can only be answered by a study of the type of vessel to be built, 
may be that the cargo carried is largely water-excluding, such as lumber, coal, 
Jed cotton, etc. 

Question 6: If a ** margin of safety line " is to be established by law, rules should be 
rmulated for Classes la, lb, I la, lib. 

Questions 7 and 8: For Classes la, lb, Ila, lib the law should prescribe as a work- 
minimum that the first three compartments from the bow, or any other two adja- 
it compartments, can with safety be laid open to the sea, and that these vessels 
uld have &i^le stability where floating at the "margin of safety line." 
Question 9: These rules of standard classification societies should suffice. 
Question 10: Where a bulkhead deck is fitted, it should be continuous for full- 
vessel. 
ia) Or from peak to peak. 

(6) Should not be obligatory, as the main dependence should be in the transverse^ 
biukheads. 

(c) ExcelleBt thin^ to do abreast of machinery spaces where stability will permit. 
The question of stability with side tanks should be carefully guarded. 
{d) No openings in bulkheads that can possibly be avoided should be allowed. 
(«) If a bulkhead deck is fitted with bulkheads reaching to it as hereinbefore recom- 
mended, it does not seem necessary to fit trunks. 
(/) Yes. 
(9) Yes. 

Ui) No. Central station at bridge sufficient. 

Question 11: (a) and (6) Swing lighte should not be fitted closer to the load line than 
6 feet forward, 5 feet aft, and 4 feet amidships. 
(c) Where practicable this should be done. 
Question 12: (a) In very large liners this is advisable. 

(6) Advisable for large passenger ships only. The height at bilge of twice the depth 
amidsMps is ample. 

(c) Wnere double bottom is fitted it should be not less than two-thirds length, and 
preferably full length. In very fine vessels the double bottom can well be replaced 
forward and aft the machinery spaces by a water-tight flat at a suitable distance above 
the keel. 
Question 13: Yes; in percentage of longitudinal immersed plane. 
Question 14: None. 
Very respectfully, 

The Wm. Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co., 
W. A. DoBSON, Naval Architect. 



742 East Twelfth Street, 

Neiv Fork, N. Y. , July 24y 191^, 
Hon. William C. Redfield, 

Secretary Department of Commerce , Washington, D. C. 

Sir: In reply to your circular letter of June 14, 1913, on "Safety at Sea," I beg 
i*ve to submit attached hereto answers to the questions in same. 

ANSWERS. 

Question 1: It is advisable to prescribe by law or regulation the maximum draft 
uid minimum freeboard for all seagoing vessels. 

Questions 2 and 3: It is not advisable to provide by law or regulation standards 
of hull construction because the infinite variety of vessels built and used in the United 
States renders such a course impracticable. The classification societies cover this 
ground as to vessels built for ocean service, and the rules of such societies should be 



136 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

passed upon by a department of the Government acting with discretionary authority 
under general laws relating to such subjects, but the representatives of this depart* 
tnent should be men fully capable through their knowledge and experience of detef 
mining the details of scantlings, structural arrangements, stability, and freeboard, 
and the Government should make the compensation sufficient to obtain the services 
of such men. 

Question 4, Classes la and I la: (a) Say 4 per cent of reserve buo3^ancy. 

Classes lb and lib: (a) Say 3 per cent of reserve buoyancy. 

(6) and (c) Can not be determined at this time. The conditions described seeii 
to be too difficult to be overcome witiiout materially interfering with the econcHnictl 
construction and operation of the vessel. 1 

Question 5: (a) The practical degree of transverse bulkhead subdivision of Claeses] 
Ilia and 1 1 lb should be determined by the representatives of the Government 
mentioned in reply to Questions Nos. 2 and 3, who will be able to protect ownefs M 
trell as crews, for an arbitrary rule demanding a greater subdivision of caigo spaces 
than now called for hy classification societies might prohibit the building of steams 
for the coastwise service because such greater subdivision would not be "practical." 

(6) It is practical, of course, to demand that the vessels referred to should canjr 
ample boat capacity at davits on each side of vessel for all persons on board, but it il 
questionable if such a demand is warranted. 

Question 6: To formulate and prescribe rules and curves which will fix the "margin 
of B&iety line " necessitates formulating rules for thfe different classes. 

Questions 7 and 8: Classes la, lb, Ila, lib should be so constructed that the forwaid 
three compartments or any other two compartments could be open to the sea. Care 
must be taken to have stability of vessels ample in case of such damage. 

Question 9: The classification societies' rules may be used to govern Sie constructioa 
and spacing of water-tight bulkheads. The present United States rules are not ade- 
quate. 

Question 10: (a) The bulkhead deck should be continuous fore and aft. 

(6) It is advisable to make water-tight decks or flats below the bulkhead deck at 
forward end of vessel where such construction is adapted to uses required in vessetof 
such as stowage of anchor chains, fittings, etc., but after all the transverse bulkheads 
should be sufficient to insure the safety of vessel, as described in reply to questions 
Nos. 7 and 8. 

' (c) The fitting of continuous or partially continuous fore and aft wing bulkheads 
providing fuel space and at the same time water-tight compartments is advisable, 
provided such compartments are so designed that the ultimate stability of vessel is 
preserved. 
'(d) No opening? in bulkheads should be permitted when such can be avoided. 
' (e) In cases where it is impractical to make bulkhead deck the topmost deck, trans* 
verse bulkheads should be carried to top deck and water-tight trunks built where 
required. 
Yes. 
r) Yes. 
i) Operation from bridge should be sufficient. 

Question 11: (a) and (6) Air ports or side lights that can be opened should not be 
placed nearer the deep-lf)ad water line than 7 feet forward, 5 feet amidships, and 6 feet 
aft. 

(c) Yes. 

Question 12: (a) Yes; on large trans-Atlantic and trans- Pacific passenger steamers. 

(Jb) It is advisable to extend the double bottom up to the turn of the bilge; and. 
this would usually be equal to at least twice the depth of the double bottom at center 
line pf vessel amidships. 

(c) Double bottom should extend full length of vessel, tliough in many cases it 
mav be more practical and quite as well to substitute a water-tight flat forward and aft. 

Question 13: Yes. 

Question 14: No; further than to say that any or all of these answers might be 
modified or changed by discussion of the various questions. 
Very respectfully, 

Stevenson Taylor, 
Past President Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers^ 

President Webb^s Academy and Home for ShipbmideTSy 

Vice President Quintard Iron Worki dp. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 137 

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 

Newport NewSj Va., July i6, 1913. 
The Secretary of Commerce, 

Depattment of Commerce^ Waakingtonj D. C. 

Sir: 1. A consideration of the subject matter of your letter of June 14, 1913, relative 
to the structural arrangements of vessels as affecting their safety at sea would naturally 
faU into two classes, viz: 

(a) What measure of safety at sea is considered desirable and practicable for differ* 
Ibt closes of vessels? 

(6) What national or international relations will be proper to secure the measure 
of ssaety at sea considered desirable and practicable? 

2. The dangers to be guarded against may be classified, roughly, as follows: (a) 
Leaks, (b) storms, (c) grounding, (d) collision, (e) fire. ( f) ice. 

' 3. A large measure of safety s^inst leaks snouTd be provided. Suitable wa tor- 
tightness of the shell on all vessels should be required by regulation. 

4. A laige measure of safety against storms should be provided, and these should 
be required by regulation — 

(1) A limit of loading, to secure strength of structure on all vessels and to secure a 
reserve of buoyancy in case of damage. 



(2) An amoimt of stability which will enable a vessel to weather storms. 

(3) Suitable strength of the structure, at least as regards deterioration. 

(4) Water-tightness of shell, weather decks, etc. 



5. The measure of safety against grounding should vary with the likelihood of its 
occurrence and with the risk of life involved. Subdivision in amount depending on 
the risk of life involved should be required by regulation. 

%. The measure of safety against collision should be somewhat greater than a^gainst 
grounding, as there is perhaps more Hkelihood of its occurrence. Subdivision in 
imount depending on the risk of life involved should be required by regulation, 
f 7. A measure of safety against fire should be provided, depending on the risk of 
^'" involved and the chances of fire occurring. There should b6 required by regu- 



hfaoDi subdivision of freight from living spaces when the cargo is innammable, sub- i 
division of fuel spaces from other parts of vessel, and probably other precautions. —^ 

8. A measure of safety against ice should be provided, but the regulations pro- 
viding against other dangers would seem sufficient to cover this danger also. « 

9. Further suggestions relative to the measure of safety which should be required 
by regulation are contained in the accompanying "Answers to questions." 

answers to questions. 

Question 1: It is deemed advisable that all classes of ocean-going vessels should 
kave their maximum mean draft prescribed by regulation. 

Question 2: It is deemed advisable that minimum standards of hull construction 
should be prescribed by regulation, especially as regards deterioration. 

The maintenance of classification oi vessels should be accepted as regards deteri- 
oration, provided the rules of the classification society meet the requirements of the 
RRulation. 

Classification societies should be licensed to make the maximum draft, as determined 
by regulation. 

When stability is known to be doubtful, decision should rest with an official of the 
Government. 

. Question 3: The rules of classification societies usually provide for the safety from 
injury of the cargo on board, and we dee.m that the regulations should aim at providing 
fof the safety of the people, irrespective of the safety of the cargo. Any design should ■ 
i)e accepted by the Grovernment which will conform to the minimum requirements ^ 
Pfescriwd by regulation; so that if the rules of any classification society exceed the 
requirements of the regulations certificate by that society should be accepted, provided 
the society is licensed to act for the government. Inspection by a department of the 

I Government, however, would seem the most suitable method. 

I Question 4 : The assumption that there should be a water-tight deck joining the tops 

I of the bulkheads does not seem to be in order. 

I The measure of safety at sea to be obtained by internal subdivision could be estab- 

/ fished as follows: 

f 1. All vessels should have a collision bulkhead. 

' 2. All vessels licensed for a total of 50 or over (counting each passenger as 2 ) should be 

tobdivided by water-tight partitions, so that any one compartment may be flooded 

without causing the vessel to founder. 



f 



138 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

3. All vessels licensed for a total of 500 or over should be subdivided by water-tigU 
partitions, so that any two compartments may be flooded without causing the vessel t 
founder, and should have machinery compartments protected by a double bottom, 
r 4. All vessels licensed for a total of 1,500 or over should be subdivided by water-tigh 
I partitions, so that any three compartments may be flooded without causing the vessej 
^ to founder, provided that on vessels fitted with continuous double bottoms extendii^ 
to upper turn of bilge a double-bottom compartment may be taken as one of the com- 
partments, and should have machinery compartments protected by a doubly bottom. 

5. All vessels licensed for a total of 3,000 or over should be subdivided by water-tight 
partitions, so that any four compartments may be flooded without causing the ve«el 
to founder, provided that on vessels fitted witli continuous double bottoms extending 
to upper turn of bilge a double-bottom compartment may be taken as one of the com- 
partments;, and should have machinery compartments protected by a double bottom. 

6. All vessels licensed for a total of 4,500 or over should be subdivided by wator- 
*> tight partitions, so that any five compartments may be flooded without causing the 

vessel to founder, provided that on vessels fitted with continuous double bottoms 
extending to upper turn of bilge a double-bottom compartment may be taken aa ooA 
of the compartments, and should have machinery compartments protected by a 
double bottom. 

7. All vessels licensed for a total of 6,000 or over should be subdivided by water- 
• tight partitions, so that any six compartments may be flooded without causing the 

vessel to founder, provided that on vessels fitted with continuous double bottom 
extending to upper turn of bilge a double-bottom compartment may be taken as one 
of the compartments, and should have machinery compartments protected by ft 
double bottom. 

The water-tight partitions may be transverse bulkheads, longitudinal bulkheads, 
inner bottoms, flats or decks, or combinations thereof. 

It can be considered that the subdivision is proper if the free top of a bulkhead ii- 
not less than 5 per cent of the load draft above the water surface resulting from the 
damage. 

The regulations necessary to carry the above into effect would need the most careful 
consideration. 

Question 5: (a) Answered under question 4. 

(6) Unnecessary if suitable subdivision of hull is provided. 

Question 6: Yes. See answer to question 4. 

Question 7: Advisable. See answer to question 4. 

Question 8: Answered under question 4. 

Question 9: Considered necessary. 

Question 10: (a) Not necessary. See answer to question 4. 

(6) See answer to question 4. In case of collision a water-tight deck below the water 
surface in damaged condition would probably be rendered useless near the place of 
injury. 

(c) Any divisions which reduce the size of compartments may be of use 

(d) All openings ia divisions considered in answer to question 4 which are ueedi 
at sea should be controlled from the bridge. 

(e) All openings in divisions considered in answer to question 4 not used at sefl 
should be closed by covers prescribed by regulation. 

(/) See (d). 

(g) Yes, if used at sea. 

(h) See (d). 

Question 11: (a) No air ports required to be used at sea should be allowed in M 
compartment considered as not flooded if below the water surface in damaged com.- 
dition. 

(b) See (a). 

(c) If proper precautions against fire are taken, two means of egress from ead 
space would seem sufficient. 

Question 12: (a) Not advisable. 

(b) Advisable. See answer to question 4. 

(c) See answer to question 4. 
Question 13: Not advisable. 

Question 14: See forwarding letter and answer to question 4. 
Yours, very truly, 

W. Gatewood, Naval Architect. 

I 

! 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 139 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

Department op Naval Architecture, 

Boston, Mass., June 30, 1913. 

Admiral Washington L. Capps, United States Navy, 

(Chairman of Committee on Bulkhead Subdivision of Vessels, etc., 
Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: It gives me much pleasure to know that you have been selected chairr 
man of the committee, appointed by the Department of Commerce, on safety at 
sea, and you will perhaps permit me to write somewhat less formally than I might 
to a stranger concerning my impressions with regard to subdivision of hulls by bmk- 
heads. All that I have to say is familiar to you, but reiteration may have its value. 
Ihere are two points that have been prominently forced on my mind : 

(1) That bulkheads are commonlv ineffective because of inadequate strength of 
;heir framing and (2) that longitudinal bulkheads are liable to lead to instability 
when large compartments on one side are flooded. 

(1) In a certain sense the framing of a bulkhead is structurally the bulkhead and 
the plating is a water-excluding membrane, the thickness of which is determined 
mainly by such practical considerations as freedom from injury during the service of 
the ship by corrosion or accident and convenience in makmg water-tight joints. 

I wish to urge that this matter is so important that a change of nomenclature is 
iesirable; the vertical members should be called bulkhead frames instead of bulk- 
liead stiffeners. They should be strong enough to carry the entire water pressure 
md should be adequately secured at the ends. The adequacy now common for bulk- 
heads of naval vessels may not be practicable for merchant ships, and in particular 
proper fastening of the upper ends of frames may be difficult. There may be some 
margin of uncertainty in the computations for bulkhead frames, especially if the fas- 
tening of the upper ends is uncertain; but I believe it possible for the designer to 
insure that tiie frames will not fail under full water pressure. 

In comparison with strength, complete water-tightness is of secondary importance, 
as a small leakage can easuy be controlled by the pumps. This statement is true 
only when the fiaming is adequate, because leakage of bulkheads in ships has too 
often been the premonition of failure of the framing. In many instances the bulk- 
heads of ships which have been damaged have gradually given way, even though 
the engineering force have used all means to brace them. A common opinion finding 
expression in newspapers is that bulkheads can not be made entirely secure. This 
fallacy should be corrected. The loss of the Republic was undoubtedly due to gradual 
failure of her bulkheads, which, however, kept her afloat for several nours and saved 
the passengers. In my <j^inion, the failure of a bulkhead a half hour after admission 
of water to it indicates madequate framing, unless, perchance, the ship may have 
pitched violently. A really adequate bulkhead should endure even that service. 
■ In one instance I have information that a bulkhead was injured by fires in coal 
I hunkers; the ship was afterwards lost by foundering. In my opinion, both owners 
and insurance brokers can not escape censiire in sucn a case. 

(2) It is well kilown that a naval vessel is liable to have only a small reserve of 
•tabiUty after one engine-room has been flooded; this refers to the ordinary arrstnge- 
ttcnt for twin screws and reciprocating engines. It is likely that the same condition 
would obtain for merchant ships of that tj, pe. Consequently the fitting of a longi- 
tudinal bulkhead is rather for the protection of the propelling power than for protec- 
tion against loss of the ship. In my opinion there is seldom reason for depending on 
a longitudinal bulkhead to protect buoyancr, and in general they should not be 
itted. 
I I will now formally answer the questions in the circular. 

Question 1: Premising that the question refers to ships in normal condition, there 
•eems to be good reason for prescribing by law the maximum draft and minimum free- 
board, much fts is now the custom in Great Britain. 

Question 2: In m/ opinion it is advisable to prescribe standards of hull construc- 
tion, the fnuning and administration of regulations being such as to obtain good con- 
•fruction without hampering normal development of shipbuilding. In the construc- 
tion of such regulations attention should be given to the rules of classification societies, 
ttd both builders and owners of ships should be freelv consulted to avoid imnecessary 
interference with their interests. There may be difficulties in formal recognition of 
•ch classification societies, but it should be possible to obtain practical cooperation 
'ith them. 

Question 3: In my opinion it would be inadvisable to enforce governmental control 
rfniles of claasification societies. It would probably be easier to require governmental 
flispection and authorization in addition to such inspection by a classification society. 
he governmental supervision might readily give wider range of discretion to builders 



140 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

than some classification societies find proper. Perliaps the governmental ins 
might be arranged to see that the inspection by a classification society was ad 

Question 4: Since my professional experience has been as an instructor anc 
a constructor^ I am answering this c][uestion with a good deal of reserve, and an 
opinion that no restrictive legislation should be taken without careful consid 
of the opinions of owners, builders, and clajssification societies; this does no 
that it will be unnecessary to take some action that may be distasteful to the 
that they should have a full hearing first. 

The committee unquestionably has sufficient reason for formulating this q 
in the way given, and my difficulty of. forming a precise conception of the 
margin of safety is probably personal and has the enect of qualifying the imp 
of my answers. My answers premise that the compartments are all transvei 
that they for purposes of the question are treated as though they were not subc 
by a longitudinal midship bulkhead. 

Again, from the blue print referred to in the question, I assume that there is 
plete deck above the bulkhead deck, which may not have compartments divi 
water-tight bulkheads. 

Having in mind that this bulkhead deck is at some considerable distance 
the water line in normal condition (in the blueprint the distance above the wai 
appears to be something like three-tenths the distance above the keel), it app 
me that a small margin of safety (as I understand its definition) would make it i 
to navigate the ship at reduced speed and with some shaping of the course t 
the ship. 

(a) Claj9S la 1 

S lia '^^ adjoining compartments flooded. 
Class lib J 

In all these cases it appears to me that a small margin of safety should suffi 
one-tenth of the original height of the bulkhead deck above the water line. 

(6) Class la 1 

Class I la I '^'^^® adjoining compartments, flooded. 
Class lib J 

If there remained a fair amount of reserve actual buoyancy, I am inclined to 
that the entire disappearance of the margin of safety would not portend disaste 

To make the case clear, I will add that if the volume between the bulkhea 
and the water after flooding these compartments were as much as a quarter 
original volume between that deck and'the water I believe there would be no 
for apprehension, even though the margin of safety had disappeared. A caref 
sideration of the question might make it possible to reduce the quarter qiiot- 
smaller fraction. 

(c) I do not believe it necessary or practicable to require that a ship shall 
reserve of buoyancy after four adjacent main compartments have been floode 
vided they are transverse compartments and not compartments formed by a r 
longitudinal compartment. 

Question 5: (a) For Classes Illa and 1 1 lb additional subdivision beyond th 
required by rules of classification societies should be required with caution if a 

lb) Since these vessels are to be classified as freight vessels and rules for pro 
of buoyancy are qualified to their advantage I believe that they should not be a 
to carry more passengers than can be accommodated in lifeboats at davits; i. 
lifeboat under each pair of davits. 

Question 6: Frankly, if I understand the margin of safety correctly, I belie 
the formulation of rules that shall not be unduly stringent will be difficult. 

Question 7: The formulation of absolute rules for siibdivision of the hull she 
made only after exhaustive study of all conditions of shipping and shipbuildin 
classes and displacements. I believe that such a study should be made an 
rules should be lormulated to give all attainable safety which shall not unduly 1 
commerce. 

Question 8: For Class la it is probably feasible to require that flooding th: 
jacent compartments shall leave a margin of buoyancy; the margin of safety 
circular bem^ a new property providing enhanced safety may not be compatib 
a rule requirmg that these compartments shall not exhaust the margin. I 
believe it is necessary or feasible to require a rule for more than three compart 



SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 141 

For Class lb and Class I la it should be practicable to require that two adjacent com- 
»s^rtmentd may be flooded without exhausting the reserve of buoyancy. For large 
hips of Class lib (say 5,000 tons displacement) the rule for two compartments should 
>e feasible. 

For Class lib, when of small tonnage, and for Classes Ilia and I lib, rules for number 
af compartments should be adopted only with caution not to interfere unduly with 
commerce. 

I am of the opinion that classification societies by controlling rates of insurance 
can practically require greater subdivision than should be required by law, which is 
liabie to be inflexible. 

Question 9: It is advisable that laws requiring subdivision of the hull in some of 
the several enimierated classes be enacted, out such regulations should be made after 
an exhaustive study, as previously advised. 

Question 10: (a) For ships of all classes it is probable that a continuous bulkhead 
deck over boiler rooms is impracticable. Also for all ships having reciprocating 
engines, a bulkhead deck over the engine room is probably impractical. There 
ehould be less difficulty in working a bulkhead deck over the engine room of a turbine 
ahip. 

The customary way of inclosing engine and boiler rooms in a trunk (or trunks) that 
can be entered only from a deck above the bulkhead deck appears to be the most prac- 
tical way of meeting this question. 

(h) For large ships it is desirable and should be practicable to work water-tight decks 
below the bulkhesui deck at bow and stern; this is only promoting a common custom 
of good practice. 

(c) Wing bulkheads for coal bunkers may add much to the resistance to damage to 
the side of the ship, but such bulkheads are normally open in service and it is likely 
that water-tight doors could not be closed with certiainty, especially from an upper 
deck or bridge. 

(d) The proper supervision of engines and boilers requires that there shall be con- 
tmuous passage from after end of engine room to forward end of boiler rooms by doors 
through bulkheads at the lowest platforms in such spaces. 

(c) Spaces under the bulkhead deck occupied by passengers or crew should have 
\ certain methods of exit at all times; water-tight trunks are preferable to water-tight 
hatches. It may be practicable to fit hatches that can be closed after such spaces are 
vacated. 

(/) It is highly desirable that water-tight doors should be mechanically operated 
^m the bridge; this includes operation by electrical power. 

{g) It should not be necessary lor water-tight doors or hatches to be operable at such 
doors or hatches after they have been mechanically closed from the bridge or bulkhead 
deck. If persons are liable to be shut in by such doors or hatches there should be 
provided ways of escape through trunks that might be carried a deck higher than the 
otilkhead deck. It is suggested that in some cases ladders through vertical ventilating 
ducts mkht be provided for the escape of the crew; passengers porbably could not be 
dependedon to use such ladders. 

(h) All water-tight doors should be mechanically operated from the bulkhead 
deck, if not from a higher deck or bridge. 

. All that has been said refers to doors and hatches required for passage of passengers 
«crew. TMhere there is occasion for doors in bulkheads between cargo compart- 
aentfi they should be properly secured before going to sea. 

Question 11: There appears to me a distinction between air ports and side lights, 
h appears Questionable whether there should be any air ports below the bulkhead 
deck, but tnere appears little reason for limiting the location of side lights. Side 
Wits can be made secure against the sea and are unlikely to be injured except locally 

S collision or other accident. A single broken side light could be closed by a proper 
te before endangering the ship; even a considerable number could be controlled. 

There appears little reason for restricting air ports or side lights above the bulkhead 
deck. 

. Fixed side lights below the bulkhead deck should not be opened; provision for escape 
• case of fire diould be by some other way. 

Question 12: (a) For vessels of Class la it is very desirable that the double bottom 
Aoiild be carried to the deck above the water line; inducement for such construction 
diould be offered, but it is questionable whether it should be required. 

{hj It ifl desirable for vessels of (^lasses la and lb that the double bottom should be 
*»ned to a height above the base line equal to twice the depth of the double bottom; 
^cement for such construction should be offered. 



142 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

(c) In all ships except those of small size the double bottom should extend practi- 
cally fhe whole length of the vessel, except where the hull is fined at the bow and the 
stern. Reasonable requirements, after proper study of the question, are desirable. 

Question 13: I do not believe that any practical requirement of larger rudders 
than are now fitted would appreciably affect safety at sea. 

Question 14: Although the largest steamships carrying the greatest number of per- 
sons are advertising sufficient boats to carry all persons aboard, it is very questionable 
whether they can provide for the service of such boats, especially in rough weather. 
There is reason to doubt whether such boats could be gotten away filled with pasaen* 
gers and crew in any reasonable time (half an hour or an hour). More especially is 
this true if more l^ian one boat is lowered from the same davits. Every inducement 
should be made for tlie construction of the hull so that danger of sinking or capsizing 
should be very remote. It is probable that ships of Class la, and to some extent thosa 
of Class lb, could have some margin of safety (by the requirements of the circular] 
with three adjacent compartments broken open to the sea. If to this condition coula 
be added a continuation of the double bottom to a deck above the load water Un^ 
or even to a height equal to twice the depth of the double bottom, such ships shoula 
be classed as unsinkable and not required to carry boats beyond the custom prior to 
1912. Wing bulkheads for coal bunkers should not be accepted in lieu of such exten- 
sion of the double bottom. 

The answers to the numbered questions are made as brief as possible, which may 
|;ive an appearance of certainly of judgment that the writer does not desire to have 
imputed to him. It is, however, considered that the committee desires explicit 
answers to the questions formulated that can give proper weight to the expression of 
opinion. 

Very respectfully, 

0. H. Peabody, 
Professor of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. 



Lloyd's Register op Shipping, 324 Bourse, 

Philadelphia^ July SI, 19 IS. 
Hon. William C. Redpield, 

Secretary of the Department of Commerce j Washington^ D. C. 

Sir: I beg to acknowledge the due receipt of your printed letter of June 14, 1913, 
asking for replies from me to various questions which have been formukited by ft 
joint committee of officers from the Department of the Navy and the Department of 
Commerce relating to the ^^ bulkhead subdivision of vessels and other structural 
features affecting we safety of ships at sea." 

I find, however, that most of tne inquiries propounded involve debatable points 
which are at present under active discussion in all maritime countries, and I few that 
it would be out of place for me, as the representative in Philadelphia of a world-wid* 
organization such as Lloyd 's Register, to express personal opinions on questions of bo 
important and far-reaching a character without awaiting advice of the conclusionai 
which will be arrived at by the committee of that society after the careful considera- 
tion which they are doubtless giving to the whole subject. 

Whilst I am therefore unable at present to deal with the major part of ;)|p.ur letter, I 
have pleasure in replying to the first three questions, as follows: 

1. 1 am clearly of opinion that it is advisable to prescribe by law or regulation 
minimum freeboards for vessels of all types, this having already been done with succeae 
and general acceptance by the Grovemments of most of the leading maritime countriefl 
on the basis of the British freeboard regulations and tables. 

2. (a) I do not consider that it would be advisable for the Government to provide 
by law or regulation any fresh standard of hull construction. To do so would be a taslc 
of great magnitude, involving — 

(1) The formulation of detailed rules as to scantlings, structural arrangements, etc., 
applicable to vessels of all tjrpes. 

(2) The provision of means to determine promptly in cases in which the prescribed 
rules are not exactly followed whether the alternative arrangements proposed provide 
equivalent strength. (Probably a decision of this kind would have to be given in ih^ 
majority of instances.) 

(3) The provision of means to insure that the standard set up is fully complied witb 
in all cases. 

(4) The establishment of a system to insure that the rules are kept continually 
abreast of the developments and changing practice of naval architecture. 



/ 



SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 143 



(5) The securing of international recognition of the rules if it should be desired to 
apply them to vessels of other countries trading to the United States or, in the alterna- 
tive, the risk of complications and grave interference with the convenience of the 
shipping community. 

(0) Such work as that described in reply 2 (a) is already performed by the several 
classification societies, with varyii^ degrees of recognition by the shipping com- 
munity. The standards of these societies are not equal, and if the United States Gov- 
^nment considers it expedient to adopt as its own standard or to recognize the rules 
for scantlings of any such institution, it would appear to me to be advisable for titie 
Government to select that institution which already enjoys the widest international 
recognition and has the greatest knowledge and experience at its disposal. Unques- 
tionably, this position is held by Lloyd *s Kegister of Shipping, the society which I 
represent at Philadelphia. The shipping classed at the present time wim Lloyd's 
Keeister amounts to over 22^ million tons; the tonnage now in course of construction 
toAet the special survey of the society's officers in accordance with plans approved 
by l^e committee amounts to 2,100j000 tons, of which 120,000 tons are being built 
in the United States of America — this last figure representing 71 per cent of the total 
new tonnage in hand in the building jrards of this country. 

I submit that the Grovemement would best consult the interests and convenience 
of the shipping community of the United States, and at the same time secure the best 
practical results in maritime safety and efficiency by recognizing in their entirety iJie 
roles of Lloyd's Register in matters pertaining to scantlings, structural arrangements, 
etc. 

In this connection it may be stated that Lloyd's Register is empowered by the 
British merchant shipping act to assign load lines to vessels, and is recognized for this 
or other purposes by the Governments of France, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, 
Austria, Canada, and Russia, while similar recognition will, it is understood, be ac- 
corded under ttie provisions of the new navigation law in Australia. Moreover, it will 
\ be witiiin the knowledge of the Department of Commerce that valid certificates of dry 
docking issued by Lloyd's Register are at present siccepted by the United States 
Government as exempting vessels from further dry docking in this country. 

3. As a matter of practical business I do not recommend that the rules of a classifica- 
tion society, approved by the United States Government, should be subject to the 
revision or approval of a department of the Government acting with discretionary 
authority unaer general laws relating to such subjects. Such a method would prove 
cumbrous in working. As I have aheady indicated, rules for shipbuilding have fre- 
ouently to be amended, and new provisions have to be introduced, in order to keep 
ue rules up to date. To require official sanction from the Government for all such 
dumges and additions would undoubtedly result in delay in bringing desirable changes 
iato operation, and put the American shipping community at a disadvantage with 
ttdr competitors in other countries. The right course, I feel sure, is for the Govern- 
Mut to satisfy itself bs to the constitution, character, and efficiency of any classifica- 
tbtt society for which recognition is sought and to leave the framing or alteration of 
nlesasr^ards structural arrangements, scantlings, etc., and also the arrangements to 
tore compliance with those rules by means of a qualified and world-wide staff, to the 
discretion, experience, and resources of the committee which controls the operations 
rfthe society which the Government may see fit to accept. The Government would, 
t< course, always retain the power to withdraw its recognition if it became dissatisfied 
^th the manner in which an approved society was discharging its functions. 
Hoping that the foregoing observations may be of service to your committee. 
Regretting that pressure of business has prevented me from replying to your com- 
'cation s-ioner, I am, sir. 



Faithfully, yours, 



Robert Haig. 



]■' 



The American Ship Building Co., 

Oppicb of the President, 

Cleveland f OhiOj August 1, 1913. 

WRUAK GoMMITTBB ON QUESTIONS 

Rblatino to Bulkhead Subdivision, etc.. 

Room 174, Navy Department, Washington , D, C. 

Dear Sir: Below I give you my answers to the questions contained in your circular 
•'June 14, 1913: 

Question 1: Only vessels which carry passengers should be limited to freeboard. 
• table should be prepared, taking into accoimt the different types of vessels and 
»e trade in which they are engaged, and giving minimum freeboard for different 



) 



144 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

seasons of the year. This would be similar to the methods practiced by the British 
Board of Trade. 

Question 2: We do not think the Government should fix rules, or adopt rules ol 
any existing classification society, regulating scantlings or thickness of plating. All 
shipbuilders have found it impossible to build a vessel of any type and exactly follow 
construction rules. This would lead to a great deal of confusion and delay to th« 
builders, as questions would constantly arise which would have to be settled by a 
committee or inspector appointed for the purpose and whose power would be unlim- 
ited. The question of stability is one which the owners should and do take care of, 
as this is largely governed by distribution of cargo. 

Question 3: We are of the opinion that a certificate of high class, assigned to a 
vessel by any well-known classification society, is a guaranty of her general sea- 
worthiness and strength; yet we do not think any societies should be recognized by 
any department of the Government. 

Question 4: With reference to the question of reserve buoyancy measured from the 
bulkhead deck, we think the conditions stated in subdivisions (6) and (c) entirely toq 
severe for all classes of vessels, as the flooding of three or more adjoining compai^ 
ments is a very remote possibility. To build a vessel having any percentage of fireo- 
board after three or more compartments were flooded would seriously affect the inte- 
rior arrangements. For example, the engine room must necessarily be a large cam-* 
partment, and one of the boiler rooms contains a large cubical space. When it ii 
considered that sufficient freeboard must be provided to float a vessel with her engine 
room and two or three boiler rooms flooded, it seems almost an impossibility to arrange 
the interior into small enough compartments, or supply enough initial freeboard, to 
support these three or more compartments flooded. 

With the conditions stated in subdivision (a), namely, freeboard with two adjoining 
compartments flooded, we think it could be arranged on vessels of Classes la, Ila, 
and lb without seriously interfering with the machinery arrangements. 

In the above cases we are assuming that the engine room and boiler room have no^ 
center-line bulkheads. If water-tight center bulkheads were fitted, it might be prac- 
tical to assume a condition of both engine rooms flooded and both sides of a boiler 
room flooded at the same time. It would not be practical to assume one side of the 
engine room flooded, together with one side of two or more boiler compartments, oa 
account of the tremendous initial stability required. A vessel built with sufficient 
stability to withstand these conditions would roll so violently in an ordinary seaway 
that passengers could not enjoy any comfort and, in fact, would be in danger of 
broken limbs. 

If side tanks were fitted and properly subdivided, the question of three of more of 
these compartments being flooded would not be so serious, and sufficient stability 
could be provided to prevent capsizing or a dangerous list. 

The percentage of reserve buoyancy required, as per blue print accompanying your 
list of questions, would depend upon the arrangement of compartments or whether 
side tanks, say, 4 or more feet wide, were considered compartments. In the event 
that side tanks wore not considered, we would say that a foot of freeboard for vessels 
of any type would be suflicient. The bulkhead deck would necessarily be one of A© 
lower docks, and there would still be plenty of freeboard above. 

Question 5: Question in subdivision (a) is answered under question 4. 

Answering question in subdivision (h), will say we think it would be practicable 
to carry boat capacity under davits, for all persons on board, on both sides of the ves- 
sel, assuming, of course, that a very limited number of passengers were carried. 

Question 6: We do not think it necessary to fix rules or curves for ''margin of safety 
line." As answered under question 4, we think 1 foot ample for all classes. 

Question 7: Do not think it advisable to prescribe more than two as a maximuoa 
number of compartments, and only on vessels of Classes la, Ila, and lb. See answe* 
to question 4. ... 

Question 8: This question also is answered under question 4. 

Question 9: We think it would be advisable to prescribe rules for construction of 
bulkheads for all classes. These rules should be carefully arranged and shipbuilders 
and rules of existing classification societies consulted. Great latitude should b* 
allowed in the selection of means of stiffening the bulkheads, on account of the numy 
types of vessels and the various methods different shipbuilders adopt in coBstniction- 

Question 10: (a) Bulkhead deck should be continuous fore and aft in Classes I»t 
Ila, and lb only. Bulkhead deck should not be fitted in Classes Ilia, lib, and Illb- 

(b) Water-tight flat below bulkhead deck not important in any class of veaselfl 
might be advisable in Classes la, Ila, and lb. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 145 

(c) Think it advisable tx) fit side or wing tanks which can be used for coal or cargo in 
vessels of Classes la, Ila, and lb. These should extend well out to the ends. Beydnd 
the side tanks the cross bulkheads should be spaced closer than amidships. 

(d) Water-tight doors ^ould be allowed at tne discretion of the local inspectors. 

(e) The question of water-tight hatchways or trunks should be at the option of th0 
shipbuilder. 

(/) Watelr-tij^t doors should be operated either from bridge or engine room. 

{a) Doors need not be capable of operation at the doors, but means should be pro- 
vided eiHier with the doors, scuttles, or manholes to permit the escape of personi^ 
imprisoned in the closed compartment. 

(h) Doors ^ould only be operated from bridge or engine room or at the doors. 

Question 11: Side lights should be allowed below the bulkhead deck wherever 
necessary. Instructions should be posted regarding the closing of same in case of 
disaster. 

(a) and (6) The question of location of side lights above water line and the matter of 
their being fixed or not should be at the option of the shipbuilder. 

(c) The present rules providing for two avenues of escape should cover this. We 
would suggest tliat means ^ould be provided, say, at the end of corridors, at intervals 
ef 30 or 40 feet, by movable lights or doors through side of ship, for escape from fire. 

Question 12: (a) We think it advisable to extend water bottom up to deck n^xt 
tbove load line in vessels of Classes la, Ila, and lb. 

(6) Do not think it necessary to extend water bottom above bilge in vessels of 
Ghsses Ilia, lib, and Illb. 

(e) Double bottom should extend to fore and after peak bulkheads unless the end 
compartments are very small. 

Question 13: Question of area of rudders should be left to shipbulldet. 

Question 14: The committee seems to have thoroughly covered the principal itemis 
lading structural arrangements with a view to prevent loss of life tnrough marine 

disBst^^, and we have noming further to recommend. 
Yours, respectfully, 

Jas. C. Wallace, President. 

SiBLET College of Mechanical Enoineerino 

AND THE Mechanic Arts, 
Department of Naval Architecturb, Cornell University, 

Ithaca, N. Y.J August 4, 191$. 

\^ Chairman Bulkhead Subdivision Committee^ 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sm: I beg to inclose herewith my replies to your questions of circular letter 
Itfdate June 14. 

Due to the pressure under which I have had to work, the replies may not be aa 
[eomplete as you might like to have them. You have only to let me know, when I 
vili endeavor to make good the deficiency. 

I stand reader to the call of the committee in any further inquiries they may be 
desirous of making, or in any way that I can be of service, in a matter in which I am 
I deeply interested for many reasons. 

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RELATING TO BULEXEEAD SUBDIVISION, ETC. 

Question 1: I consider it not only advisable but imperative that the maximuni 
... dnft and minimum freeboard should be prescribed by law for all classes of vessels, 
domestic and foreign, trading between United States ports or between United States 
yorts and foreim ports. 

Question 2: I am of the opinion that general standards of construction of the hull 
tod propelling machinery, and of the machinery and appliances for the pimiping, 
dndiuge, lifting, ventilation, and steering, as also the equipment necessary to in- 
•tt the reasonable safety of the crew and passengers, should oe established by law. 

Rules and regulations under such law to be issued by a department or bureau 
Joperly constituted and officered by competent men. These rules and regula- 
".J 1008 to provide for the inspection of vessels as such times as not to unduly interfere 
^ the business interests or arrangements of the owners. 

With reference to the recognition of the rules of classification societies by a dejJart- 
^t of the Government: Commercial considerations surrounding shipping interests^ 
H they have growh up in the past and as the> are at present existent, render it 
■ecesaary that «uch rec(^nition should be freely given. Observation of the bickier- 



I V 



u: 






146 SAFETY Oi?' LIFE AT SEA. 

ings between the British Board of Trade and Lloyds that have occurred in the past 
•clearly indicate that not only recognition but cooperation with the classificatioiK 
bodies by the department would be absolutely essential. Undue interference by 
the department in what has become to be recognized by shipping interests the world 
over as the proper authorities to deal with the structiu"al arrangements, scantling, 
and properties of the materials used in the hull, etc., would certainly be resented 
by all concerned. Too many restrictions, coming from different sources, affecting 
these matters would also tend to retard progress in the development of new and pro- 

fressive improvement of existent types of vessels, which coula best be accomplisLed 
y cooperation between the designers and the commercial organizations created for 
that piirpose. The preceding considerations, however, should not interfere with the 
ri^ht of the department to step in at any time and dictate such changes as experience 
might indicate as necessary to insure safety of life at sea. 

Question 3: If the Government of the United States enters into an international 
agreement adopting standards for safety of life, this will without question carry with 
it the recognition of standard classification societies. I have no opinions to offer, 
but it may be well for our Government to take such precautions as will make certain 
equal recognition by other Governments of similar bodies here. 

Question 4: This question carries with it so many varying and diverse conditionB 
which require careful consideration, not by any single individual, but by a select 
committee of trained experts having full Imowledge of the intricacies of design to 
be found in all types of vessels, and who, having gathered together from all sources 
working data regarding the commercial operation of vessels in various services, might 
reach a more or less definite solution of what has to be recognized as a problem of 
very large proportions. 

I have given this question the gravest consideration, and my present conclusions 
Are as follows: 

There should be two distinct set of rules for freeboard — 

One set (a) applicable to vessels designated in your letter as types la, Ila, lb, lib; 
to these I would add one other type, Ic, lie, steamers engaged in the carrying of 
passengers, etc., on all lakes, rivers, and inland waters. 

So far as open-sea vessels arc concerned, I can not see any distinction between, 
la and lb or between Ila and lib, and whatever may be deemed proper for these 
should be applied, with suitable modifications, to those of Ic, and with further modi- 
fications to lie, the fundamental principles remaining the same. 

One set (h) applicable to vessels designated as Ilia and lllb. I think that it 
would be difl^cult if not improper to attempt to apply any rules, beyond competent^ 
supervision, to vessels which may be designated I lie. 

Confining our attention to rules (a), and clauses (a), (6), and (c) of your question, 
I fail to see any difference between two, three, or four compartments when referred, 
to a single "safety line," for the following reasons: 

Agreeing upon some "safety line,*' we know that to keep within the limits imposed 
by the "safety line" water pouring through a rent in a vessel's underwater body 
would have to be restricted to a compartment having a length which we will call th© 
^* safety length." This length would vary, as we Imow, with location, form of the 
vessel, the amount, stowage, and water-excluding powers of the contents of the com- 
partments, for we would have a number of these throughout the leneth. But the 
chances are equal that the penetration may take place at a bulkhead and the "safety 
length'* consequently exceeded. Recognizing this, we introduce the "two- 
compartment" vessel, maintaining the same "safety line." Rem' mbering, how- 
ever, that no rules can be laid down as to how collisions are to take place, we have 
the probabilities to face of a glancing blow on a bulkhead, an int'^rrraction of forces, 
resulting in withdrawal, a coming together, and a second penetrftirn of a compart- 




we should change the "safety line" from that which we first agrerd upon. 

I regard the "three-compartment'* subdivision as fundamental and necessary tB^I 
take care of what we must regard as possible, if not probable, in any collision of or^' 
nary proportions. We might go along the same lines and to saf^uard the lives of 
passengers introduce "four or more compartment" vessels, but why should we cha 
the "safety line**? Commercial considerations become of grave importance when 
attempt to pass beyond the "three-compartment** stage. 

I have devoted a large amount of time in investigating a number of vessels of 
ferent classes and types, transocean and coastwise, and have reached a present 
elusion tiat the "safety line** should be placed below the "bulkhead deck,** a' 
0.05 of the freeboard amidships, tapering with easy curvature to one-fifth of 




SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 147 

aount at the stom and stem. This I would apply equally to types la, Ila, lb, and 
[b. In r^;ard to vessels of Ic and lie types, special investigation of the actual con- 
itions under which these vessels run would have to be made before a suitable "safety 
ne" could be determined. On this I have nothing to offer, but I am decidedly of 
le opinion that one is necessary, even at some risk of affecting seriously commercial 
atereets. Observation at any of our ports causes one to realize that the risks rup, 
nd the number of lives endangered exceed those of ocean travel Any day a calamity 
;reater than that of the Titanic may enfold the nation in grief and recrimmation. 

The other set of rules (6) to be applied to vessels referred to in the following 
[uestion: 

Question 5: In your letter vessels of types Ilia and Illb are defined as primarily 
^aigo ships or cargo steamers with some passengers. To me ''some passengeirs" is a 
ittle indefinite. 

In the larger vessels of above types, due to the small length occupied by the machin- 
ery, as* also the large number of hatchways for facilitating ra})id loading and discharg- 
ing, there would be probably little difiiculty in placing them in a " two-compartment" 
class, but as the smaller vessels are approached such a condition if imposed might 
seriously affect, if not destroy, their commercial usefulness. After due consideration — 

(a) I am in favor of applying freeboard rules (6) and in addition the number of bulk- 
b^Mls prescribed by the stan<&u*d classification societies. 

Rule (b) might well be based on those of the British load line, 1906, with such mod- 
ifications as conditions might indicate. 

(6) It seems to me that an answer to this clause might be: Restrict the number of 
passengers so that it will be entirely practicable to carry sufficient lifeboats under 
davits to accommodate all on board. 

Question 6: For Classes la, Ila, lb, lib, and, in addition, Ic and lie: Yes; for 
Classes Ilia and Illb: No. 

Question 7 : Having prescribed a * * safety line, " as in answer to questions 4 and 6, this 
would carry with it ''salety lengths " at different divisions of the vessel's length, which 
' would have to be protected by compartments, and I would propose the following as 
' the minimum number: 

For vessels of Classes la, Ila, lb, lib: 

Length on water line above 700 feet, four (any). 

Length on water line, 500 to 700 feet, three (any). 

Length on water line below 500 feet, two (any). 

No bulkhead, bunker, or otherwise with a door or doors in it to be considered as 
fonning any of the above compartments, with exception of doors leading from main 
engine room to shaft tunnels or auxiliary engine rooms. 

No doors to be permitted between engine and boiler or between boiler rooms, unless 
it can be shown tnat the compartments affected are in excess of the number as neces- 
sary to protect the "safety length" at that part of the vessel's length. 

Vessels of Classes Ilia and Illb have been dealt with in answer to question 5. 

Question 8: An answer to this question is to be found in my answers to question^ 
5,6, and 7. 

Question 9: In fulfilling the conditions imposed in connection with the preservation 
of the "safety len^:th," bulkhead spacing is directly involved. Apart from this it 
Would, in my opinion, be very inadvisable to formulate rules for spacmg of bulkheads. 
Too many restrictions of this kind are to be avoided as much as possible, provided that 
the chief object is obtained. The construction of the bulkheads can be more properly 
left to the classification societies. 

Question 10: (a) As being part of the strength structure, the bulkhead deck should 

be continuous tiiroughout the length, except in raised-quarter-deck vessels. But if 

what is involved in the question is, Should the bulkheads be carried to the same deck 

fluoughout the length? That will depend upon other features of the design. We 

how that sheer forward and aft is very valuable, and carrying up the end bulkheads 

f UUiy be the proper thing to do in a given case. This was done in the case of tlie Titanic. 

^th the bulkheads, from the one at forward end of the engine room to the one forward 

of the idterpeak, these being carried to the shelter deck. Had those at the forward 

fut of the ship, or all of the bulkheads, been carried to same height the ship might 

lave had a better chance of remaining afloat; but this I will not go into here. 

(b) Water-tight decks or flats, at any part of a ship, except in association with longi- 
taainal divisions, are of questionable value, for the reason that in side collisions, 
glancing or otherwise, the decks or flats would in all probability be ruptured. The 
idiances of this are even greater than that the penetration would take place at a trans- 
reroe buUdiead . Water-tight flats in a warship have a very definite value, but in these 
penetration from gunfire must be accepted as a premier condition, whereas collision or 



148 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

ramming in modern tactics have become very remote. Furthermore the warehip 
a relatively large amount of longitudinal subdivision. These together with 
spacing of the transverse bulkheads complete an admirable cellular protection 
loss of buoyancy. 

In the mercantile vessel such a system is diflScult in application. Central lo] 
dinal bulkheads at the middle line might be possible in some cases, but 
stability must be maintained, and all conditions in their fulfillment would call 
least one longitudinal division on each side of the middle line. Unless very 
changes in the working of the mercantile vessel be accepted such subdivision i 
m&st be abandoned . 

Furthermore, while trunk hatchways running between flats or decks in way 
passenger accommodation are quite possible, stairways in way of same are a necee *' 
Elevators are similar. These could all be inclosed in trunks, but with water-i 
doors these would in my opinion be very uncertain propositions. In fact, yourwai 
tight flat would exist in name only, and in the mercantile vessel are not wortliy 
consideration. 

(c) As a designer I have very lukewarm interest in wing bulkheads or, for ijilM 
matter, any bulkhead forming boundaries to coal bunkers as protection against loflnjl 
buoyancy from collision, for me reason that doors are a necessity, and Uiese, nomattS 
where fitted, I regard as affording very questionable guaranties so far as the safetyfl 
the vessel is concerned. 

On the other hand, in very many cases wing bunkers may be fitted with advantiin| 
in so far that such an arrangement, in lieu of transverse bunkers, may render it poeeS^ 
to keep the lei^th of the machinery installation within a smaller percentage of th(| 
length of ship, which would be of decided advantage in any condition of bilgir"^ 
Lack of attention, or possibly ignorance, of these finer points of desi£:n contributed 
no small way to the loss of the Titanic^ and I am afraid tne seas are full of similar 
I do not mean that any one detail led to the final result, but her design was faulty i 
many respects, and when tested she was found wanting. 

Nevertheless, I am certain that it would be dangerous to attempt to prescribe 
law or regulation the disposition of machinery or of the bunkers of any vessel. 

{d) Openings in longitudinal bulkheads have been dealt with in the p 
clause (c). As to the transverse bulkheads, my experience and observation enab 
me to state most emphatically that there is no absolute necessity for doors throi 
transverse bulkheads below the bulkhead deck. Access to the different 
compartments below the bulkhead deck can be readily arranged for by stairwa] 
and elevators. It is true that inconvenience (largely fancy) may result, but mai 
better have the safety of lives assured. I do not except machinery spaces in 
above. 

{e) Entirely practicable, but hatchways are not the only openiuj^ to be considered; 
stairways, etc. , sire necessary for the passengers. The difficulty of dealing with theH 
l^as been already discussed. Better carry the bulkheads to a higher point. 

(/), (^), (h) Assuming for the moment that doors are necessary. The closing and 
opening are two distinct operations; both of these should be made possible fromth* 
bridge and the bulkhead deck. Only the closing operation should be possible atths 
door. The operation of opening, other than from the bridge or deck, should be reft- 
dered impossible by suitable mechanism (bolt or other holdfast) automatically falllM 
in place on closing and so arranged that its withdrawal is under tJie absolute contra 
of the bridge or deck station. 

Question 11: In considering this question, let us inquire for what purpose sideliriii 
and air ports are fitted. Chiefly for providing light and air to sleeping accommoa»> 
tion below the bulkhead deck, and may be considered as desiraole; but even bi^ 
steamers of moderate dimensions the rooms next the side are but a small proportion^ 
of the total number, getting smaller and smaller as the size of the ship and number 
of passengers increase, and the greater majority have to rely upon artificial meant 
for Doth light and air. This being so, it may be said that side lights are unneceasary. 
I am, however, in favor of fitting fixed side lights (to admit sunUght) only below the 
bulkhead deck, if the safety of the ship is to be considered of greater importance than 
the convenience of a small percentage of the passengers. Ventilation can be made 
more positive by efficient general systems, supplemented locally by fans in state- 
rooms and other spaces as may be found necessary. Even for the purpose of affordini 
exits in case of fire, I am not in favor of other than fixed lights below the bulkhead 
deck. Disaster from fire problems should be dealt with separately, but their sol* 
tion should not be sought along lines which would render tne vessel less safe undo 
conditions of bilging. Generally, I am opposed to openings in water-tight bulkheads 
1 would not be consistent if I iavored tnem thiow^h. the eides. Constant care m 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 149 

ipervision of coaling ports blow the deck are necessary, as, from observation on sev- 
ral vessels here and abroad, I am convinced that in many cases they might be con- 
ributin^ causes of a calamity. 

Question 12: In the case of side collision, glancing or otherwise, the chances are 
^ery much in feivor of a deeper penetration than the space which would be found 
)iacticable to inclose between the inner and outer skin. And in a great many cases 
t would militate against what might be the most suitable arrangement of machinery, 
lecessitatin^ extending same over a greater length of the vessel, which from a bilging 
}tandpoint is always to be avoided. My replies to the different clauses of this ques- 
tion are as follows: 
(a) Neither necessary nor desirable. 

(6) Current practice and the requirements of standard classification societies cover 
all tne necessities. 

(c) A^MU^ from the carrying of water as ballast or for trimming purposes, which 
brought it into existence, I regard the double bottom as of the greatest value in case 
of grounding, and if suitably divided into at least two longitudinal water-tight com- 
partments on each side of the middle line, carried as far forward and aft as practicable, 
the center longitudinal or keelson being maintained water-tight beyond these limits 
would serve the twofold purpose of preserving some of the buoyancy and of controlling 
the stability which might otherwise be menaced in a colUsion. 

Question 13: There is no more important detail in the design of a vessel than that of 
providing it with sufficient maneuvei ing power, but it is a matter of common knowledge 
that no division has less attention paid to it. Even in the best practice rule-of- thumb 
and unscientific methods are still m use. The rudder area suitable for different sizes 
and speeds, and in the same vessel at different speeds^ is not a matter which could be 
bestluLQdled by classification bodies whose chief function is to see that vessels are suffi- 
ciently strong for their work. Therefore I am in favor of rules for the guidance of 
designers in determining the proper rudder areas, which should be included in those 
issued by the department previously referred to. As rudder areas to give rapid maneu- 
vering at low speeds would render the vessel oversensitive at the top speeds, attention 
would have to be given to steering gears which would give the most efficient control 
under all conditions. 
I Question 14: As an answer to this question, I have this to say: 

The Tiianic disaster made a spec'ial appeal to me peryonally, lor the reason that 
while naval architei:t with the ( lydebank company ot shij^builders (where many 
notable Atlantic liners, including the Lusilanin, nave been built) I took nart in the 
design and construction of many types of vessels, but there was none in wnich 1 was 
more interested in than that ot the ocean liner. The experience then gained and since 
matured by study, as also the result ui observation as a passenger on board Qot only 
Atlantic vessels (upon which I have crossed almost every year during the past 20 years 
«id at all times of the year), as well as to other parts of the world, has enabled me to 
/orm some very definite opinions as to some truths as well as «5oine fallacies relative to 
the problem **Safety of life at sea." Some of these are einbodied in my replies to 
your question, but even if they are repeated it will serve a'^ emphasis of what 1 may 
reijanl as of importance. 

f^ofe rersus unsinkahle, — I believe that it is po:^ible to design a vessel that would be 
^l"e under all conditions, barring what might be s]>oken of and regarded as a convul- 
sion of nature, one other condition which, if it occurred, 1 would dread the result. 
Suppose the Maumania while traveling at full speed stnick the Lusitania on the 
bulkhead between Nos. 3 and 4 boiler rooms. Would an explosion of boilers take 
place? I don't know. Still such a collision might take place, and one or both sink. 
Given a sufficient number of such possibilities, or even convulsions, with the exper- 
ience gained vessels mi-^ht be designed which would be expected to survive, and ao 
we would approach still nearer the ideal ''unsinkable.*' To me, as an engineer, the 
teali/.ation of the ideal must ever remain one of the mechanical improbabilities (im- 
possibility is a word 1 have no definition for, so never use it). 

Experience, after all, is what we must chiefly rely upon, together with minds who 
are big enough and broad enough to make the best use of it. Are we? 

lAfrhoatH — Lifeboats for every soul on board is the cry, and as the result they are 
being thrown on board— 50, 70, 100 of them on one vessel- the number depending 
on the number of souls. Do you, or does anyone who has traveled the Atlantic or 
Bmaller and leas-famous seas in the dead of a winter's storm, believe that if the rfiip 
was struck a fatal blow that the lifeboats would be anything more than instruments of 
torture? Consider the launching (with women and children) of 20, or 50, or 100 of 
these 3Q-foot lifeboats under the conditions named ; 60 people on board, an able-bodied 
leainan, or possibly two firemen, and a steward, to hanale the boat. Of those that 
oirvived the launching (and 1 don't care whose patent davits are used) how many 



150 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

boats would survive the launch? What chauces (who were able to leave the side) of 
reaching any haven but that of death unmercil'ully drawn out? 

The firitish appointed a committee to sit on this question, headed by Sir John 
Biles, my old chief. What has that committee produced as a result of tHeir labors? 
A boat 50 by 15 by 7 to carry 250 persons. Simultaneously with publication of the 
committee's report a davit company designs a davit to put them overboard with the 
250 battened down (wise precaution) rails to run them across the deck to the listed 
side; weight, loaded, 28 tons. 

The Imperator or Aquitania would have to carry 20 of them- 560 tons to be put over 
the side in, say, an hour in, say, conditions referred to or even a rough sea. I have 
no details as to how they are to be handled, whether power or oars. Is it necessary 
to know? 

They say "of two evils choose the lesser." I believe I would choose the old boat, 
but I have faith in neither. 

You afik have I any better to propose. Yes; the ship herself. Spend all our 
energies, all our genius, and all our money on making her as safe as we can, and not 
waste our time on fallacious substitutes. I was glad to note in your letter the follow- 
ing: ** Experience has shown that this provision requiring lifeooats for all on board 
does not secure complete safety in the event of disaster even in moderate weather." 
I trust it will be your policy to maintain this attitude. 

Suhdioision. — Having set adrift all the boats, deck houses, decks, and other pieces 
into which a fertile mind might imagine a ship can be cut or broken, let us consider 
the ship herself. What are tne best means for making her safe? 

I have for many years held the opinion that transverse subdivision alone is the 
fundamental principle which must be adopted to make the mercantile vessel safe^ 
supplemented, of course, wherever possible by cellular construction like that of the 
well-designed double bottom referred to in answer to one of your questions. The 
trouble is to obtain the spaces without interfering with the needs of commerce. 

I have, in reply to another question, given you my ideas of the amount of sub- 
division. This is to be taken as only an indication oi what a few well -chosen cases 
have yielded on analysis. 

My opinion and hope is that this Government will appoint a special committee to 

fo over the ground covered by the British bulkhead committee in 1891. Their work, 
believe, was well done, but many changes in form of vessels and their arrangement, 
the limits within which the committee investigated have been exceeded (in the case 
of ratio of freeboard to that of depth; also the per cent of length occupied by machinery, 
etc., their assumptions as to the standard cargo would, I think, bear further investi- 
gation), and many other details would be the better of a* new study. The experience 
we have gained in the past 22 years would also be useful to a new set of investigators 
in this important field. I have analyzed the subdivision of some of the important 
liners, and some of them, for which the owners claim fulfillment of the conditions 
laid down by the committee, would barely keep afloat with some of their **two com- 
partments" bilged. , 

Compare the following: 

Water-tight 
compart- 
ments. Lengtbf 

New York and Philadelphiay as designed and built 1890 15 525 

Lusitania 13 760 

Titanic 16 852 

Claims have been made in the public prints that the Lusitania and Imperator could 
survive what the Titanic encountared. My studies of the design of these vessels 
show that the final result would be the same. The three last-named vessels have, 
in my opinion, their bulkheads just one deck too low, and they could have 
been designed, without affecting their efldciency, for that height. The Xtmtonifl 
could have had four more bulkheads, one at the center of each of her boiler rooms, 
without interfering with her boiler installation and with considerable addition to 
her safety. 

Water-tight bulkheads and uater-tight doors. — ^Tien I speak of compartments I mean 
water-tight compartments. That means water-tight bulkheads. This means with- 
out doors. If a water-tight bulkhead has a water-tight door fitted it ceases to be 
water-tight, and the two compartments which it formed become one. There; tha* 
is my doctrine. It is one founded on experience, of which the Titanic was the la^ 
example. Did the evidence (that which was published) shov^ that the doors wer© 
closed, except those in the engine room? Did the bunker doors work? I have ye* 
to find one case among the disasters at sea in which the water-tight doors, although 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 151 

ied upon, saved the ship. On this principle and analysis of the Lvsitania ded^n 
>W8 that if struck on the water-tight bulkhead dividing the two forward boiler 
wns, these two compartments bilged, the water would pass through the water-tight 
or in the forward bunker, and then it would be time to detach our "floating deck*' 
th a good supply of hard-tack, in case the galley was washed overboard, 
General. — ^Witn real water-tight compartments 'm sufficient number there are still 
ft many things which should be looked after by rule and regulation, established by 
w, to make the ship still safer. Pumping, drainage, fire protection, steering arrange- 
ents, and after all this there is the personnel . Is the Atlantic liner with b,000 people 
L board — ^the majority good American men and women — is she properly manned? 
don't mean has she a sufficient number of men who are ready to go down with the 
lip. No; I mean men properly trained in knowing what to ao, when to do it, and 
DW to do it. Do what? Everything necessary to keep the ship afloat. Experience 
pdn comes forward and answers no. It is up to the United States to protect her people 
lat make the Atlantic liner possible: that make it possible for the British, the Ger- 
lans, and others to have at their command valuable war auxiliaries. It is up to the 
'nited States Government (treaty or no treaty) to demand that well -trained crews are 
lit upon these vessels to carry our people home in safety. When all this is done 
aafety at sea " may be said to be reasonable. A reading of what I have said here will 
low tnat I rely upon the ship herself for "safety." For several months I have been 
orking at an idea which I had hopes would have been in such shape that I could have 
it before you. But the pressure of business matters which had to be attended to 
terfered with progress, as it has with this report, and I am not desirous of bringing 
B matter forward until the idea is complete in all the details. I may say, however, 
it proposition has to do with the ship nerself , by which shie will be still further pro- 
ved from the dangers of bilging. 

Geo. R. McDermott. 



Maryland Steel Co., Office op the President, 

Sparrow Pointy Md.^ August U, 191S. 
►n. William C. Redfield, 
Secretary of the Department of Commerce y Washington, D. C. 

3ir: I respectfully submit herewith our answers to the several questions embodied 
your circular letter of June 14, 1913, relative to the structural arrangement of ships 
th a view to securing safety at sea. 

answers to questions in reference to safety at sea. 

Question 1: There should be a law regulating the maximum draft and minimum 
5eboard for all classes of vessels similar to the board of trade regulations used in Eng- 
ad. 

Question 2: It is not considered advisable to regulate scantlings and structural 
rangements by law, owing to the many different claHses of vessels which are built 
id the advances being made in the structures. The best plan, in our opinion, would 
} to have an advisory committee to the Steamboat- Inspection Service (appointed 
3m civilian life), who could deal with the question of scantlings, structural arrange- 
ents, and stability. This committee should also have the authority to assign free- 
)ards as prescribed by law. 

By arrangement witn the classification societies of the United States two of tlie 
embers of this committee could be appointed to the rules committee of the classifi- 
ition societies, or the regulations of the Steamboat-Inspection Service should require 
lat all classification societies doing business in this country should submit their rules 
said committee for approval before being issued. The committee should be empow- 
ed to re<][uire such cnanges in existing or futur.^ rules of the classification societies 
they think advisable. There are no regulations of classification societies of the 
nited States in reference to stability. 

Question 3: The question of stability should be handled by this committee by fixing 
Diinimum metacentric height for differant classes of vessels and should require calcu- 
tions to be submitted before building is commenced. 

Question 4: (a) We believe, with two adjoining compartments in free commimica- 
m with the sea under the most unfavorable conditions of stowage of said compart- 
ents. Glasses I la and lib should have a 5 per cent reserve buoyancy under bulkhead 
!ck. 

(b) In Classes la and lb we believe that with three adjoining main compartments 
free communication with the sea, as in preceding conditions, there should be a 5 
r cent reserve buoyancy under bulkhead deck. 



152 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

(c) The condition as given in this paragraph we consider to be extreme, except for 
very large vessels, whicn would probably only be built under Class la. In this claas 
. we believe 5 per cent reserve buoyancy would be sufficient, with additional safeguanif 
as given in our answer to (juestion 12. 

Question 5 : (a) We believe that the bulkhead subdivision as now required by the 
standard classification societies is ample for Classes Ilia and Illb. 

(6) The proposition of furnishing ample boat capacity at davits on each side of veesel 
for all persons on board, under Classes Ilia and Illb, we believe to be entirely 
practicable. 

Question 6: Rules and curves should be constructed fixing the ''margin of safety - 
line" for Classes la, lb, Ila, and lib. We do not believe this would be necessary in 
Classes Ilia and Illb, for with the freeboard rule and ample boat capacity on each side 
- of vessel there would be no necessity for additional ra^ulations. 

Question 7 : We believe that it is advisable to prescribe by regulation for Classes la, 
lb, Ila, and lib the maximum number of adjacent main compartments which, under 
the most unfavorable conditions of stowage and weather, could be flooded without 
imperiling the safety of the vessel. 

In this connection we would point out that account should be taken of the stability 
of vessel in damaged condition in determining the spacing of bulkheads for flooded 
compartments. 

Question 8: The maximum number of such compartments we would suggest for 
the various classes are as follows: Class la, four; Class lb, three; Class Ila, three; 
Class lib, two. 

Question 9: We believe it would be necessary to formulate rules for the spacing of. 
water-tight bulkheads for vessels in the above-noted classes, but believe that the 
construction should be left to be dealt with by the classification society in connection 
with the advisory committee recommended in our comment on question 2. 

Question 10: (a) In Classes la, lb, Ila, and lib we would recommend the bulk- 
head deck to be extended fore and aft, and in Classes I Ila and lllb bulkhead deck 
to be water-tight only outside of macliinery spaces. 

(6) We do not consider water-tight decks or nats below bulkhead deck to be efficient. 

(c) The fitting of continuous or partially continuous fore and aft water-tight wine 
bulklieads is considered of doubtful value. If used, great care should be exercisea 
in investigating the stabilit / of vessel with one side open to the sea. 

(d) We would recommend avoiding any openings in water-tight bulkheads imless 
absolutely necessary. 

{e) While water-tight trunks to deck or decks above bulkhead deck might be 
desirable, in our opinion they are impracticable. Any trunks installed around 
cargo hatches would necessarily have to be pro\'ided with doors for handling cargo 
into 'tween decks, and they would be of doubtful value. In the case of Chases la 
and lb it would be a practical impossibility to so inclose stairways leading to quarters 
below bulkhead deck. 

(/) We would recommend that water-tight doors fitted in water-tight bulkheads 
be mechanically operated from bridge. Alarms should be fitted at or near door. 

(a) AH water-tignt doors should have means of operating near the door. 

iji) If arrangements are made for operating these doors from bridge and at door 
we do not consider it necessary that they be also fitted with a means of open^ting 
from bulkhead deck. 

Question 11 : (a) We would recommend that no air ports be fitted below bulkhead 
4eck. Fixed lights should be fitted in these spaces, if required^ or lights from deck 
above could be installed with arrangement for ventilating and hghting these spaces. 

(6) We would recommend the fitting of one or two fixed side lights in each com-: 
partment to provide for the egress from compartments under conditions as mentioned. 

Question 12: (a) We would recommend that double bottoms be extended to bulk- 
head deck for Classes la, lb, Ila, and lib. 

(6) For Classes II la and II lb we would recommond extending double bottoms to 
upper turn of bilge. 

(c) To be of value, double bottoms should be extended from forward-peak to stem- 
tube bulkhead. 

Question 13: We do not b'^lieve it is practicable to formulate rules specifying size 
of rudder and consequent maneuvering power of vessel, as this depends entirely upon 
the shape of model. 

Question 14: We believe that in all cla.sses more adequate provision should be made 
for the pur|)ose of preventing, detecting, and extinguishing fires. There are now sev- 
eral types of each machine on the market. 
Very respectfully, 

Maryland Steel Co., 
F. W. Wood, President. 



SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 153 

Maryland Steel Co., Marine Department, 

Sparrow Point, Md., August 14, 1913. 
Kr. William C. Redfield, 

Secretary Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. 

Sir: I b^ to acknowledge receipt of your circular, under datt» of June 14, in reference 
to safety at sea, and in reply to your request for answers to the various questions, beg 
to say the list inclosed with letter from our president, Mr. F. W. Wood, even date, 
embodies my comments on these subjects. 
Very respectfully, 

T. M. CoRXBROOKS, Chief Engineer. 



Exhibit E. 

Report to the Secretary of Commerce of the Committee on Lifeboats — Inter- 
national Conference on Safety at Sea. 

Department of Commerce, 

Washington, October 14 j 1913. 
To Hon. William C. Redfield, 

Secretary of Commerce. 

Sm: The committee designated by you to collect information and submit a report 
to you upon the question of the necessary number, type, capacity, etc., of lifeboats, 
life rafts, davits, life preservers and life-saving equipment generally of passenger 
vessels in transoceanic service has the honor to submit the following^ report: 

The committee consisting of Mr. George Uhler, supervising inspector general, 
Steamboat-Inspection Service; Mr. Sumner I. Kimball, general sui)erintendent, 
life-Saving Service; Senior Capt. D. P. Foley, Revenue-Cutter Service; and Mr. 
£. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner of Navigation, met at the office of the Commissioner 
o{ Navigation at 10 a. m., May IQ, 1913. Mr. Chamberlain outlined the work before 
tilie International Conference on Safety at Sea, and reviewed briefly what had thus 
iw been done in the matter of preliminary preparations both here and abroad. Mr. 
Uhler was chosen chairman of this committee, and after a consideration of the matters 
ttiat will possibly be brought before it, the committee adjourned to meet at the call 
dthe chairman. Shortly after this first meeting, Lieut. Col. Chauncey B. Baker, 
Quartennaster Corps, United States Army, was appointed a member of the com- 
mittee. Pursuant to the verbal call of the chairman, the committee met in the office 
of the supervising inspector general at 10 a. m., on September 2, 1913, all members 
present. Col. Baker having been appointed during the recess of the committee, met 
with the committee for the first time on this date. 

A series of questions upon the number, construction, type, capacity, buoyancy, 
etc., of lifeboats and life rafts, and upon the subject of davits and lowering devices 
was approved by the committee, and submitted t» the various steamship companies, 
Aip Duilders, ufeboat builders, and others interested. The steamship companies 
Trere requested to distribute the questions to the masters and officers of their various 
iteameiB for reply and any suggestions or recommendations they might be pleased to 
mbmit. The letter of transmittal, the list of questions, and the names of the companies 
to^om they were submitted are as follows: 

September 2, 1913. 

Sir: The eommittee designated by the Hon. William C. Redfield, Secretary of 

Commerce, to collect information and submit a report to him upon the Question of the 

lecesMury number, type, capacity, etc., of lifeboats, life rafts, davits, life preservers 

Jad life-saving equipment generally of merchant vessels in ocean service, incloses 

iterewidi a list of questions, and req^uests your views upon the subjects thus outlined. 

This information and report are mtended for the use of the American delegation 

)d the Intematioiial Conference on Safety at Sea, and the committee therefore shares 

^ the r^ret of Secretary Redfield that no appropriation has been provided to carry 

iQt his original purpose to include in the memberahip of this committee expert repre- 

iKitatives of the various organizations and companies intimately concerned with the 

Hit^jecti aieigiied, as well as Government officers, and the committee is therefore 

obhged to request your cooperation through corres{)ondence. 

It would materially aid the work of the committee if replies were made at your 
ttrhest possible convenience, and the committee would sincerely appreciate this 
oofideration. 



154 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

I 
Replies should be addressed to the Supervising Inspector General, Steamboat-! 
Inspection Service, Department of Commerce, Wadiington, D. C. 

George Uhler, 
Supervising Inspector General^ Chairraan. 
S. I. Kimball, 
Superintendent United States Life-Saving Service. 

E. T. Chamberlain, 
Commissioner of Navigation, 
D. P. Foley, 
Senior Captain United States Revenue-Cutter Service. 

Chauncey B. Baker, 
Lieutenant Colonel, Quartermaster Corps, United States Army. , 

Lifeboats. 

number. 

1 . What is your opinion regarding the desirability, practicability, and poflibility 
of providing lifeboats for all persons on board? \Vith this reply, will you kindly* 
suggest or explain in a general way the possibility and method of stowing the necessaiy^ 
boatage? 

2. What is your opinion respecting the substitution of life rafts or collapsible life-- 
boats for a part of the necessary lifeboats? In what ratio should such substitution oi- 
each or botn be allowed, if at all? 

3. W^t is your opinion rejecting the installation of the largest lifeboats that ctti 
be handled with a large complement of persons, or the installation of a larger numbcf 
of smaller lifeboats that can ne readily and safely handled and quickly launched aoC 
gotten away? 

material. 

1 . Should they be constructed of wood or metal^ or do you think that either is wm 
serviceable or practicable as the other when fitted with air tanks of sufficient capacity^ 

2. If of wood, what do you consider the best material for frame and plank? 

3. If of metal (galvanized steel or iron), do you consider that No. 16 B. W. G. isfl 
safe minimum gauge for the shorter lengths, with proportionately heavier gauges km 
longer boats? 

4. Do you consider that the requirements of 40,000 pounds tensile. starength pen 
square inch and an elongation of 20 per cent in 4 inches sufficient to guarantee i^reiigift] 
and homogeneity in lifeboat metal? 

5. Whskt is your opinion respecting the relative merits of wooden and metalli< 
lifeboats? 

TYPE. 

1. What do you consider the most desirable and safest type of model lifebottti 
whether whaleboat, sharp at both ends, surfboat, sharp bow and square stem, or t^c 
ordinary full-bodied boat of easy model? 

2. What is your opinion of the self-bailing, self-righting boat for lifeboat equipment 
on ocean steamers, taking into consideration the questions of utility and capacity? 

3. W^at is your opinion respecting the maximum length of boat that may be speedi^ 
and safely handled and launched with her full complement of persons on board? 

4. Should the use of power lifeboats be mandatory or optional, and if mandatory; 
what should be the numbey or ratio to the lifeboats propelled by oars and sails? 

CONSTRUCTION. 

1. Wliat do you consider the best form of construction for wooden boats — diagonalii- 
lap strake, or smooth plank? T. 

2. W^at is yoiu* opinion of the pressed -metallic boat respecting its relative strengflt 
to the riveted boat? ^. 

3. Do you think that the depth of a lifeboat should be restricted to a certain wtfi)7 
with beam or girth? If so, to what extent? * 

4. Do you think that lifeboats should be fitted with outside fenders to protect Uitfl^ 
from contact with the side of the ship when launching in rough water? 



,^ 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 155 

BUOYANCY. 

1. Do you consider that 1 cubic foot of air .space for each person allowed in wooden 
boats ana 1^ cubic feet of air space for each person allowed in metallic boats is suffi- 
cient complement of air-tank capacity under all circumstances? 

2. Do you think that all buoyancy capacity should be confined to the inside of the 
boats in tanks, or do you think that there should be a fender or buoyant material on 
the outside? 

3. Do you think that galvanized iron or steel is the proper material for air tanks, or 
should they be of copper or yellow metal? 

CAPACITY. 

j 1. Do you think that 10 cubic feet of space per person is sufficient room in ordinary 
I types of lifeboats? If not, will you kindly express your views upon this subject? 

2. Do you think that the complement of persons should be restricted to seating 
capadty? 

3. What is your opinion re^krdinff the fixing of a minimum freeboard of a lifeboat 
loaded to her fall capacity, and shomd this be made the subject of a hard and fast rule? 

LIFE RAFTS. 

1. If life rafts are allowed to be substituted for a part of the required lifeboat 
capacity, do you think that they should be restrictea to the reversible, metallic, 
eyiiiMincal catamaran type, or should any type of cylinder raft be allowed? 

2. Which do you think are preferable, the heavy rafts of large, capacity, neces- 
nrily handled by cranes or davits, or the smaller rafts that can be more readily handled 
ind launched without recourse to davits or cranes? 

3. Do you think that the cylinders of life rafts should be restricted to a minimum 
diameter of, say, 16 inches, without re^d to size of raft, or may smaller cylinders be 
ttedin smaller rafts? (An important inquiry.) 

DAVITS. 

1. Do you think that the round-bar davits should be still continued in use on 
ateamers already equipped, or do you think that they should be discontinued and the 
TBsael fitted with improved mechanical davits as soon as possible? 

2. Do you think that all steamers hereafter constructed should be fitted with 
improved mechanical davits, or should the use of round-bar davits be longer allowed? 

1 What is your opinion regarding the question of each boat or group of boats being 
KTved with its own pair of davits, allowing independent launching, or allowing three 
davits to serve two boats or group of boats? 

4. Do you think that the use of three or four fold rope falls should be continued, or 
t:*4 Aould wire falls with fewer parts be substituted? 

5. Should power pinches and drums with brake control be installed to facilitate 
vdghing, launch, or recovery of boats, and would manual operation of winches, in 
fen of other power, be satisfactory? 

6. Do you think that any davit that can not carry a boat outboard under a moderate 
apposing list should be allowed on ships carrying passengers? 

List of steamship companies and others to whom the questions were submitted : 

''Alaska Pacific Steamship Co., Alaska Steamship Co., American Hawaiian Steam- 

ahip Co. (New York and San Francisco), American Line, American Mail Steamship 

To., A. H. Bull Steamship Co., Clyde Steamship Co., Estate of I^ewis Luckenbach, 

Great Northern Steamship Co., Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co. (Ltd.), Mallory 

Steamship Co., Merchants & Miners Transportation Co. (Philadelphia and Baltimore), 

Munson Steamship Line, Northland Steamship Co., Northwestern Steamship Co., 

Kew York & Cuba Mail Co., New York and Porto Rico Steamship Co. , Ocean Steam- 

Aip Co., Oceanic Steamship Co., Old Dominion Steamship Co., Pacific Coast Steam- 

aiiip Co., Pacific Mail Steamship Co., Panama Railroad Steamship Line, Plant 

Steamship Line, Peninsular and Occidental Steamship Co., Red "D" Line, The 

Robert Dollar Co., San Francisco and Portland Steamship Co., Southern Pacific 

Steamship Co., Standard Oil Co., Sun Co., Texas Co., Union Oil Co. (of California T, 

United Fruit Co. (Philadelphia and New York). 



156 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

List of others than steamship companies to whom questions were submitted: 
"Wm. Cramp & Sons Ship and Engine Building Co., New York Shipbuilding 
Co., Fore River Shipbuilding Co., Newport News Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Co., 
Harlan & HoUingsworth Corporation, Bath Iron Works, United States Supervising 
Inspectors (First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Tenth Districts)^ Mr. Stevenson Tayloi 
(care of Quintard Iron Works), Astoria Boat Works, Frederick W. Martin (care ol 
Astoria Boat Works), Welin Davit Lane and DeGroot, C. M. Lane Lifeboat Co., 
Thomas Drein & Son Co., L. T. Gardner, F. W. Munn, Walter Hart." 

It is \vith considerable regret that the committee is obliged to report that owing 
to the peculiar conditions attaching to the organization of this committee, the absence 
of funds to carry on any experimental work whatever, and the fact that the time of 
each and every member of tne committee has been taxed almost to the limit by duty 
upon other committees and an unusually large volume of business in his own aepart- 
ment and bureau, its conclusions and recommendations must be largely drawn from 
the consideration of whatever replies it may have received to its inquiries, in connec- 
tion with the opinions and suggestions of the individual members. 

Replies which have been received would seem to indicate the opinion that lifeboats 
for all on board are most desirable and important, and in fact necessary; that they 
should be made of metal in preference to wood, and that they should be handled and 
operated by rope falls and mechanical davits; that the present types of lifeboats 
accepted by the authorities of the United States, equipped as required, are sufficient 
in strength, capacity, and buoyancy to meet the ordinary ana possible demands, 
and that some motor-power lifeboats should be carried; to what extent, however, is 
a question upon whicn the opinions differ, but at least two for each gixip. By far the 
greater number of replies favor the medium-size lifeboat, say 28 feet, and gener^ly 
agree that larger boats would be unwieldy and not so readily handled and gotten 
away. It is generally held that life rafts should have no place in the recjuired e<][uii>' 
ment of an ocean steamer. CoUapsibles may be tolerated under certain conditions. 
The committee has considered the subject in its important phases, and while basing 
its conclusions, necessarily, upon the knowledge of the members and their familiarity 
with the subject and the information afforded by those who have replied to the 
inquiries, it feels that these conclusions will have the approval and support of those 
familiar with the conditions sought to be corrected, and your own sustaining encourage- 
ment. 

It would have been much better if the committee had been a^orded the opportunity 
of actually demonstrating the merits of various ty^es of equipment under varying con- 
tions, respecting capacity and stability of lifeboats, efficiency and adapl^biUty ol 
handling gear and davits, and other details of the subject, but in the absence of sudi 
opportunity the committee is of the opinion that, excepting .the purely scientific and 
technical features of the subject, it is sufficiently informed to present the following 
conclusions: 

1. On all steamers the construction of which has not been more than 20 per cent com- 
pleted, and on all steamers hereafter contracted for, arrangements should be made foi 
the installation of lifeboats of approved t^-pe in sufficient number to accommodate everj 
soul on board, but on steamers already in service the lifeboat equipment mav continu€ 
as at present until such time in 1914 as may hereafter be determined, when all steamen 
must be equipped with lifeboats for all on board. Modern lifeboats of approved type 
make this requirement possible and convenient and there is no reason wny it shoulc 
not be met. There are many ways in which the full quota of lifeboats may be stowed 
with safety and security and insure quick handling and reasonable protection in ordi- 
nary heavy weather or under conditions of moderate list. 

2. After a certain date in 1914, to be hereafter determined, Ufe rafts, collapsible 
boats, or folding boats should not be allowed as any part of the required life-saving 
equipment. 

3. Lifeboats should in all possible cases be restricted to a length of 30 feet, with appro- 
priate breadth and depth, which latter features should be determined by actual demon- 
stration and trial. These smaller lifeboats may be more quickly handled and gotten 
away, and in the opinion of the committee are far more desirable than the larger and 
more unwieldy lifeboats. 

4. Lifeboats should be made of metal, with air tanks as required by the present 
Ainerican rules, and constructed in accordance with the rules of the Board of Super- 
vising Inspectors, or any other rules requiring equal or better construction. 

5. Of tne model or standard lifeboats, the full-bodied easy model would seem the 
most desirable, but the committee agrees that the question of lifeboats for all on boaid 
is solved by the approved decked lifeboat of full body and cellular bottom, and the 
knowledge of the merits of this boat enjoyed by a part of your committee, acquired 



SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 157 

am a close observation of the actual demonstration of its adaptability under varying 
id trying conditions, sustains the committee in the belief that it is a most excellent 
pe of lifeboat. 

6. The self-righting lifeboat, while an excellent boat for rescue and life-saving pur- 
ses in coast and surf work, has no place in the lifeboat equipment of a passenger 
amer, and its consideration for this purpose should be eliminated entirely, as tiie 
cessary design of the boat for the purposes of its special service, makes it undesirable 
any other work. 

^ The installation of a small number of power lifeboats should be made mandatory, 
t less than two on anv ship, and a proportionately greater number on larger diips 
ere tlie number of lifeboats increases. These power lifeboats should be equipped 
\h internal-combustion engines adapted to fuel that insures quick starting and rea- 
lable poedtive operation, and that will admit of tank capacity for the largest pos- 
le range of endiu^nce. At least one of these boats should be fitted with radio appa- 
us of me widest range that can be conveniently and securely installed. 
\. All lifeboats should be restricted to a minimum freeboard when fully equipped. 
1 loaded to full capacity in accordance with the rule governing allowance basea 
on cubical contents of boat. This should be made a hard and fast rule, from which 
deviation should be considered and allowed. 

). The question of davits and lowering gear has had careful consideration, and in the 
inion of the conmiittee is quite as important as any other phase of the subject. The 
I round-bar davit, with rust-bound bearings, and its well known various disadvan- 
[69 and dangers, should be discontinued as soon as possible, and mechanical davits of 
)ven reliability and merit substituted therefor. In most ships these can be installed 
thout any other inconvenience than some additional strengthening of the superstruc- 
re and ttie short delay incident to making the few alterations required to effect the 
ange. Falls should be fitted with some device to prevent dipping and fouling, and 
3 small cleat for holding the turn should give way to a subs^tial bollard, thereby 
nlmizing the surge or jerk of a purchase incident to rendering over small surfaces. 

10. Each boat or group of boats snould be served with its own pair of davits, thereby 
miitting the independent launching of each boat or group of boats, without being 
bject to the delay of awaiting the relief of any part of another gear, and all such davits 
mid be capable of carrying a boat outboard under a moderate opposing list. 

11. Power winches, and drums with brake control is an ideal scneme for weighing, 
inching, or recovering heavy boats of large capacity, and where conditions will 
rmit, is most desirable, but on many ships manual operation of the boat gear would be 
ite satisfactory, and for these reasons the question of such installation must be 
veined by conditions attending the size, number, and position of the boats, stowage 
ice, and general features of construction and deck space of the ship. 

12. Lifeboats, davits, falls, and all operating gear must be of sufficient strength to 
thstand the suspension of liie boat when loaded to full capacity and fully equipped. 

13. The eauipment of lifeboats should include a sea anchor of sufficient area to nold 
e boat heaa to sea in heavy weather, and a device for distributing oil for the purpose of 
ioothing the sea, and all other gear and supplies specified by the rules of the Board of 
ipervising Inspectors, or rules which provide for equal or better equipment. 

Respectfmly, 

Geo. Uhler, 
Supervising Inspector General^ Chairman. 
S. I. Kimball, 
Superitendent United States Life-Saving Service. 

E. T. Chamberlain, 
Commissioner of Navigation. 
D. P. Foley, 
Senior Captain United States Revenue-Cutter Service. 

Chauncey B. Baker, 
Lieutenant Colonel ^ Quartermaster Corps y United States Army. 



158 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Exhibit F. 

Report to the Secretary of Commerce of the Committee on Fire Protec- 
tion — International Conference on Safety at Sea. 

Department of Commerce, 
Washingtonj October 25, 1913. 
To Hon. William C. Redfield, 

Secretary of Commerce. 

Sir: The committee designated by you to collect information and submit a report 
to y;ou upon the question of fire protection on passenger vessels in transoceanic 
service has the honor to submit the followins^ report: 

The committee, consisting of George Uhler, Suj)ervising Inspector General, and 
Nils Bernard Nelson, supervising inspector of the ninth district, at Cleveland, Ohio, 
both of the Steamboat-Inspection Service, has met for the consideration of matten 
pertaining to the subject, and has also visited the cities of New York and Boston for 
the purpose of conferring with the representatives of the insurance companies having 
interest in this most important question. 

The committee itself is quite familiar with existing conditions and has gives 
careful thought to the matter with a view of increasing the means and agencies ki 
the prevention, early detection, and prompt extinguishing of fire on shipboard, 
thereby minimizing me dangers of the most alarming and perhaps the most obstinatv 
peril encountered in navigation. 

prevention. 

The danger from fire can be and is materially lessened by the prohibition of dan- 
gerous cargo and ship's stores, by care in the location and stowage of cargo, which, 
while under ordinary conditions is reasonably safe, is made dangerous by stowafB 
in compartments susceptible to changeable and dangerous temperatuies, or by 
stowing with other cargo in such proximity that the slightest motion invites friction 
and consequent combustion. Prohibition of dangerous cargo or stores is, therefoi0j 
in the opinion of the committee, absolutely essential in the prevention of Qie, Uti 
next important factor being the location of the different characters of cargo, and finally 
the absolute necessity of stowing in such manner as to preclude dangerous fiictioa^ 
such as iron bands on bales of textiles or fibers meeting other surfaces which create 
spark or extraordinary heat. ' 

While the foregoing observations refer, of course, to cargo and cargo compartmentSi 
the saloons, cabins, and Uving quarters have not been ignored, and the committee ha0 
given thorough consideration to this feature, and while recognizing and realizing that 
decorations and adornments in the way of extravagant draperies, upholstery, painty' 
moldings, etc., are inviting and pleasing and quite often demanded by the passenger, 
nevertheless they are the source of great danger and should be elimintaed, and the mip 
made a medium of convenient, comfortable, and safe transportation rather than an 
extravagant, luxurious, and dangerous form of pleasure. 

So far as may be possible wood should be eliminated in construction of superstructuM 
and cabins, and the highly inflammable light material be substituted by noncombitf' i 
tible material in such form or quantities as will provide reasonably safe constructioa j 
while retaining comfortable and convenient living quarters. ] 

One of the most important factors in prevention of fire is the maintenance of an i 
efficient and careful patrol of all accessible parts of the ship, by which danger maybe \ 
apprehended and fire averted by prompt and decisive action on the part of the patrol ] 
Smoking in cabins, staterooms, or private compartments should not be allowed under J 
any condition, and this prohibition should be rigidly enforced by the vigorous applica- ] 
tion of governing rules, severe punishment to follow their violation. Tortuous pas- 
sages and winding stairways and companionways should give way to free and open 
passages in order that possible disaster mav be promptly averted without interference 
and delay occasioned by the congestion of contracted and complicated passages. 

Prevention must be recognized as the first and most important consideration, and 
to this the committee has directed its best thought. Nothing that will prevent should 
be ignored or overlooked, and the suggestions and recommendations as outlined above 
are only a few ot the most important and possible precautions, the adoption of which, 
however, would be a long step in providing safety from fire. 

DETECTIONj 

The detection of fire in its incipient stages in the inaccessible cargo compartments 
of the ship must naturally rely upon the observance of smoke from a pipe leading ^m 
the compartment direct to the atmosphere or the action of mechanical or automatic 



SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 159 

ppliances indicating the presence of fire and at the same time indicating the particu- 
ar comx>artment in which tiie fire is located. This warning may be noticeci either 
>y observance of smoke from a pipe leading from the compartment (the pipe exhausted 
t)y a fan or other device to facilitate the flow of smoke) or oy the ringing of a bell which 
is operated by the automatic action of any device controlled by conditions of tempera- 
ture, with the possible exception of the thermostat, which is of rather delicate construc- 
tion for this purpose. Fire in cabins, staterooms, storerooms, etc., may be detected 
by the operation of tiie system of mechanical alarms or by the observation of the patrol, 
and constant attention to these alarms by an alert watch or patrol practically guaran- 
tees prompt response and decisive action. The committee, therefore, recommends 
Aat the cargo and other inaccessible compartments of the ship be fitted with the means 
d automatically indicating the presence of fire, and that the other compartments be 
protected by the patrol or an efficient alarm system. 

EXTINGUISHING. 

The means for promptly extinguishing fire should alwavs be at hand and in service- 
[able conditions, and for the accessible compartments of the ship is a requirement that 
aay be easily and conveniently met by pumps and portable chemical extinguishers, 
kit for the inaccessible compartments, such as cargo holds, remote coal bunkers, etc., 
lie must be met by the introduction, through pipes leading to such compartments, of 
water, steam, carbonic-acid gas, or other extinguishing gases or vapors, a necessity 
that is already acknowledged and provided for by the laws of the United States. 

The eflScacy of any of these agencies depends entirely upon the nature of the fire or 
the length of time it has been burning before detection, and as the success of fighting 
fire depends entirely upon meeting the fire in its earliest stages the application of the 
extinguishing agent must be quick and of sufi^cient volume to' check its progress imme- 
4ittely, if possible. 

This situation suggests the fact that quite often fire is discovered or detected so long 
ifter its inception that it has attained proportions that make it practically invulnerable 
to attack, and at best may only be confined to a certain location, controlled perhaps 
ktnot extinguished. The necessity of automatic action of the extinguishing agent, 
istiiierefore apparent, and the committee strongly recommends that all cargo holds 
lad other inaccessible compartments of the ship be fitted with automatic extinguishing 
jpMuratus lie action of which is almost coincident with that of alarm or detection. 
The efficiency of any of the automatic systems must depend largely upon the care 
od diEcretion exercised in its installation and the proper location oi outlets and 
to&tiolling fuses, etc., for there can be no doubt of the efficacy and strength of such 
intomatic systems, as they have been tried repeatedly under severe tests of actual 
demonstration and have fully proven their worth. 

Whether tiie automatic system be of the water-sprinkle type or the distribution of 
>team, vapors, or gases, can not at this time be determined, but the committee is of 
the opinion that any system that will automatically "blanket" or **pair' a fire is a 
I necessity that can not and must not be ignored . The committee has witnessed demon- 
'fltrations of automatic control in fire extinguishing that fully and positively sustain 
flieae recommendations . The committee c an not conclude this report without strongly 
i^Bcommending that fire pumps and all appliances serving automatic devices should 
be of ample proportions and capacity and in duplicate and that no precaution that can 
lessen fire risk or any other hazard should be ignored. 

In the first part of this report the committee strongly expressed its opinion respecting 
Uie prohibition of dangerous cargo on passenger ships, which naturally sustains the 
inference that dangerous car^o must be taken care of by cargo steamers, and, if per- 
mitted, the committee at this time dares to suggest that the requirements for radio- 
telegraphy be made to apply to cargo ships as well as to passenger vessels, because of 
^Sict that cargo diips are facing greater fire risks and dangers tnan passenger vessels, 
and that should be as fully guarded against as any other peril. 

George Uhler, 
Supervising Inspector General. 
N. B. Nelson, 
Supervising Inspector^ Ninth District. 

Mr. Alexander. All these subjects have been considered with 
care by these committees. The Secretary of Commerce undertook 
to meet the situation by employing the several officers of the Govern- 
ment service, as Congress had declined to make an appropriation to 
provide for this preliminary work. So that we wont to London 
pretty well equipped for our work. 



160 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA, 

Germany in the meantime spent large sums of money, employed 
experts, and worked out a program. France did the same thine, and 
Great Britain also. Those are the confidential prints to whi(3i Mr 
Furuseth refers. They were sent to us that we might know what 
they were doing, and these reports were sent to mem that thej 
might know the lines along which we were working. If the appropria- 
tion had been made, some of these men representing these several 
committees no doubt would have been appointed by tne Secretary oi 
Commerce, or by the President, to go to meet the European experts 
to go over the ground, and ascertain as far as they could how nearl) 
th^ were in agreement. 

To my mind, that was a practical thing to do, the only sensible 
thing to do, and instead of being subject to criticism it ought to Ix 
the subject of conomendation. And so far as having worked out ms 
program cr arriving at any ccnclusicns is concerned, that is hot correci 

Senator Hitchcock. This consisted, then, as you say, simpW of f 
program adopted by Germany alone, another adopted by Pranci 
alone, another adopted by Great Britain alone ? 

Mr. Alexander. Each one of them went to work in the first 
instance on these different subjects, and employed their experts, and 
then I understand that those preliminary committees from Germanj 
met with a corresponding committee of the board of trade in Londoii 
and went over their work, and compared their notes. So witt 
France, and so we would have done if we had had an appropriatioi 
which would have authorized our delegates to go there lor that 
purpose. But we were not able to do so for the reason that nc 
appropriation was made. 

Senator Hitchcock. Did these relate to program merely, or tc 
agreement upon results? 

Mr. Alexander. Each committee, just as ours, worked on the 
subject, for instance, of safety of construction and safety of naviga- 
tion, and wireless telegraphy, and all these other subjects. TliefiM 
confidential prints were their proposals for the consideration of th< 
international conference. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Is it your opinion that you had a frei 
and open conference ? 

Mr. Alexander. Absolutely. The minutes of the debates in ever3 
committee were kept, and they constitute volumes. There are fiv< 
or six volumes of the proceedings in the committees. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Of the conference ? 

Mr. Alexander. Of the conference. There could not have beet 
a fuller or freer consideration of these subjects. Notwithstanding thie 
preliminary work that was done, the conference met on the 12tn daj 
of November, and organized with Lord Mersey as chairman. It met 
again on the 13 th of November, when the program was agreed upol 
and the committees announced. 

I wish to say with relation to that program — they say the America! 
delegation had no notice of that. There was not a subject considerec 
in that conference that was not embraced in the joint resolution passed 
by Congress, and it was made the basis of the program. After th< 
12th of November tlie conference never met agam in plenary sessiol 
until the 19th dav of Januarv. All thesesubjects were considered in th< 



^▲FfiTY OF LIFS AT B£A. l&l 

committees day after day and nisht after night during the weeks inter- 
vening until just before the Cnristmas holidays, when the several 
committees made their reports, and they were referred to the com- 
mittee on redaction, of which M. Guernier, of France, was chair- 
man and I was a member. 

Senator Lodge. It was the 19th of December that you met again. 

Mr. Alexander. I refer to the meeting of the full conference. It 
was about the 19th of December that these reports of the committees 
eame in and were referred to the committee on redaction to consider 
the reports, and then on the 5th of January the committee on redact 
tion, of which M. Guernier, of France, wa^ chairman, met and was in; 
L session daily, including the Sunday just prior to our adjournment on 
the 20th. The committee on redaction concluded its work on. 
Sunday, the 18th day of January, about 2 o'clock in the afternoon. 
The convention was then printed and reported to the conference on 
ihe 19th of January and was agreed to unanimously, and we met oi^ 
the 20th and signed and adjourned sine die. 

Senator Hitchcock. Could you say, just roughly speaking, to 
what extent these preliminary conferences predetermined the result 
of the general conference ? 

Mr. Alexander. I would not be able to say, because, while I 
received those confidential prints and read them, I never regarded 
fliem otherwise than bb suggestions. 

Senator Hitchcock. Were the German delegates bound by the 
nsults of these preliminary conferences ? 

Mr. Alexander. Why, certainly not; not to my knowledge. 

Senator Hitchcock. What I wish to know is whether they had 
the nature of instructions to the delegates, or whether they bound 
them to some extent ? 

Mr. Alexander. Not to my knowledge; not any more than ours. 

Senator Sutherland. Had these three countries — Germany, 
France^ and Great Britain — agreed upon a tentative program ? 

Mr. Alexander. The tentative program was not agreed upon 
until we met in conference on the 12th day of November. What I 
mean to say is this, that I presume these parties who had worked 
out the various subjects, who had been engaged in these investiga- 
tions from time to time, may have agreed tentatively upon the sub- 
j«ctB to be considered, but the duty devolved upon Great Britain to 
propose the program for the convention, as she had called the con- 
vention, and that program, I have it, embraced the subjects that 
J Were suggested in the joint resolution of Jime 28, 1912, passed by 
bl Congress, and were discussed at the conference here in December, 
1912, at which Mr. Baker, representing the Board of Trade of England, 
rA ^ present, and I apprehend we had as much to do with framing the 
fro^um for that conference as any other nation, so far as that is 
concerned. 

Senator Sutherland. I did not intend to suggest any complaint 
tf the fact, but I wanted to know what the fact was. 1 understood 
you to say there had been prehminary meetings of the German com- 
missioners, the French commissioners, and the commissioners of 
Sreat Britain 



it 



'So 






Kr. AL£XAla>ER. I understand so. 
88ii4— 14 ^11 



162 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Senator Sutherland. And that afterwards these three commis- 
sions had met together, or had delegates from each 

Mr. Alexander. They had met together, Senator, for the pur- 
pose of agreeing, as I understand it, upon the subjects that should 
DC considered by the conference, not upon what the conclusions 
ishould be. 

Senator McCumber. Upon merely a program? 

Mr. Alexander, A program, yes. Because if you will take the 
memorandum that was submitted by the Germans, and compare it 
with the memorandum submitted by the French, while they all em- 
brace the subjects of construction and safety of navigation, and 
wireless telegraphy, and other subjects, they do not agree as to con- 
clusions, but they all agree that these various subjects shall be con- 
sidered in the conference. They differ quite widely in their conclu- 
sions as to what should be done. The French nad an ideaUstic 
program. The Germans had worked out these various propositions 
m great detail and they were very much wedded to their program as 
to what should be done in working out these various propositions. 

Senator HrrcHOOOK. Was there any agreement between France 
Bnd Germany after each one prepared its own ? 

Mr. Alexander. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator HncHCOCK. Any agreement between Germany and Great 
Britain ? 

Mr. Alexander. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Hitchcock. Nor between Great Britain and France? 

Mr. Alexander. No. Nor between them and us, except that 
all these subjects should be considered in the conference, and each 
nation submitted its proposals to the others. They are the confiden- 
tial memoranda to wnich Mr. Furuseth refers. 

Senator Sutherland. That is, no agreement of the principals, but 
an agreement as to the program as to what should be considered ? 

Mr. Alexander. That is all. 

Senator McCumber. No understanding between those nations that 
they support each other upon any particular poHcy to be pursued ? 

Mr. Alexander. No. I will call your attention to one of the 
questions that was acute later in the conference. 

Senator Sutherland. I wish to ask you another Question. The 
agreements made by the commission separately related to principles, 
not to the mere matter of program, did they not? What is the fact 
«,bout that? As I understand you, the German commissioners met 
«ind agreed upon certain principles they would stand for in the con- 
ference. Am I correct in understanding that ? 

Mr. Alexander. For instance, take construction, liow to con- 
struct a ship so as to make it as nearly as possible un -inkable. Of 
•course naval architects disagree, like lawyers do. They presented 
their views in that regard, etc. 

Senator Sutherland. In their meeting they agreed upon certain 
definite things that they beheved would contribute to saiety at sea? 

Mr. Alexander. Yes; among themselves. 

Senator Sutherland. I mean among themselves. 

Mr. Alexander. Yes; I wish to say, with reference to the German 
delegation, that on this work, like everything else they imdertake, 
they were very thorough. 

Senator Sutherland. But they did agree upon what they would 
stand for ? 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 168 

Mr. Alexander. I presume they did among themselves. 

Senator Sutherland. Was not that indicated by the confidential 
paper they sent out ? 

Mr. Alexander. Yes, as I understand it. Those were the sugges- 
tions for the conference as to what should be done. 

Senator Sutherland. Were they all bound by that ? That is, all 
bound to support it in the conference ? 

Mr. Alexander. Which— the Germans? 

Senator Sutherland. Yes. 

Mr. Alexander. I never saw their instructions. I don't know. 

Senator Sutherland. Something was said about a unit rule. I 
: desire to understand about that. 

Mr. Alexander. That referred to our own delegation. I will 
get to that later. That was simply how we should present our 
proposals to the conference. I will (iwell on that in just a nioment. 

Senator Sutherland. So far as the others were concerned, do you 
know whether there was any such arrangement ? 

Mr. Alexander. I never heard of any such arrangement. I pre- 
sume they proceeded in a businessUke way like we undertook to do. 
I will speaK of that later. I do not hesitate to say that if this pre- 
liminary work had not been done by experts appointed by the Secre- 
tary of Commerce, that so far as our delegation is concerned we 
would have gone to the conference empty handed, and without hav- 
ing given consideration to these great subjects - safety of construc- 
tion, safety of navigation, wireless telegrapny, and boats and davits. 
Those are subjects you can not pick up in a day and determine. 
Hence this preliminary work done under tne instruction of the Depart- 
ment of Commerce was very valuable, and we made use of it in our 
Work in the conference. 

Mr. Furuseth said — and that brings us next to the question about 
^hich yon were inquiring. Senator Sutherland — that the United 
States surrendered her right to inspect foreign ships. Our instructions 
from the State Department, which were no doubt inspired by the 
Department of Conamerce, were these with reference to the matter of 
Certificates. 1 will read from the instructions which accompanied 
our commissions from the Secretary of State through J. B. Moore, 
counselor, of date October 14, 1913: 

It is also important that the delegation should bear in mind that, in accepting 
principles to govern the reciprocal acceptance of certificates and standards laid down 
by other nations relating to safety of life at sea^ the power of the Governmer.t of the 
United States to make its inspection through its officers to insure that the require- 
laents of such certificates and standards are actually complied with by foreign ships 
in ports of the United States must in no manner be impaired. 

Those were our specific instructions. I call your attention to the 
language. 

It was recognized that if we had an international conference on 
safety of life at sea, and could provide for international standards, 
that we must necessarily provide for an international certificate. 
Hence, the instructions provide specifically that the power of the 
Government of the United States to make its inspection through its 
}fficers — 

o insure that the requirements of such certificates and standards are actually com- 
)lied with by foreign ships in ports of the United States must in no manner be im- 
Mured. 



164 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Germany and France have always maintained that the flag followed 
their ships; that no other nation has the right to inspect a Uerman of 
a French ship in their port. Great Britain and the United States 
have always acted on the contrary theory. We have always claimed 
the right to inspect foreign ships in our ports, and we have exercised 
that right. Great Britain has always maintained and exercised that 
right. And hence one of the first questions to be determined in the 
conference was how these international certificates should be regarded. 
From our standpoint we must keep in view our instructions from the 
State Department, and any agreeinent made should come within the 
spirit of our instructions.- 

Drs. von Koerner and Seeliger, of Germany, myself, and Mr. 
Chamberlain had several conferences on that question, because it 
was regarded that we occupied the extreme viewpoints, and if we could 
Qome to an agreement, it would be possible to frame an international 
certificate and agree upon how it should be regarded by the different 
signatory States. We called attention to our instructions, that i< 
would be impossible for us to peld the right to inspect foreign ships 
in our ports. Great Britain gave us to understana that it would Oi 
impossible for them to surrender that right, which they had exer^ 
cised so long. Finally, I drew the article substantially in the forni 
which was accepted by France, Germany, and Great Britain, and by 
the conference. 

Senator McCumber. Would it not be well to give us that article 
right now? 

Mr. Alexander. I will ^ve it to you right now. If you will turn 
to article 57, you will see it. We must keep in mind that this was^ 
a conference to provide for safety of Kfe at sea. Article 57 reads: ; 

A certificate, called a ''safety certificate," shall be issued, after inspection and 
survey, to every vessel which complies in an efficient manner with the reqidrements ■ 
of the convention. 

The inspection and survey of vessels, so far as re^rds the enforcement of the pro- 
visions of this convention and the annexed regulations, shall be carried out by offi- 
cers of the State to which the vessel belongs; provided, always, that the Government 
of each State may intrust the inspection and survey of vessels of its own country 
either to siu^eyors nominated by it for this purpose or to organizations recognised 
by it. In every case the Government concerned fully guarantees the completeness 
and efficiency of the inspection and survey. 

The safety certificate shall be issued either by the officers of the State to whidi 
the vessel belongs or by any other person duly authorized by that State. In either 
case the State to which the vessel belongs assumes fuU responsibility for the ce^. 
tificate; 

Some of the foreign nations provide that these surveys may be 
made by certain organizations. For instance, I think in France it is 
by the bureau Veritas, and in some of the other nations by the Lloyds^ 
surveyors, who are the most expert in the world. In our country the 
inspection is made by our Steamboat-Inspection Service. So that the 
criticism leveled against that provision by Mr. Furuseth has abso- 
lutely no force in it whatever. The Government undertakes to make 
the mspection through competent officers and guarantees the good 
faith and the thoroughness of the inspection. 

Senator McCumber. May I ask here, would it have been possible 
to have secured an agreement without conceding that much to 
Germany and to France in that certification ? 

Mr. Alexander. There was no serious division about that in anj 
quarter. I presume anyone who has knowledge of the subject wil 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 165 

fcgree that the inspections made by the Bureau Veritas and the 
Lloyds inspectors are the most thorough made in the world. 
. Senator McCuMBER. Your instructions from this country were that l 
Bon were in no instance to surrender the right of this country to in- 
spect foreign vessels in its ports ? 

Mr. A1.EXANDEB. For certain purposes. That does not affect the 
-question as to what agencies the several Governments should employ 
'to make the inspection. 

Senator McCuMBER. That looks to me as though that was some-fe>^ 
thing of a smrender, and I want to know if it was absolutely neces- 
sary to yield that in order to secure an arrangement ? 

Mr. Alexander. I do not think that affects the question at all, if 
you will pardon me. 
Senator McCuMBER. Possibly I am mistaken. 
Mr. Alexander. That was the agency through which the foreign 
flovemments might inspect vessels — in the first instance directly by 
flieir steamboat-mspection service if thev had such a service. But 
ihey have different methods of making tneir inspections. We make 
ours through our Steamboat-Inspection Service. The other Govem- 
toents make their inspections through such agencies as they deter- 
mine upon. 

^ Senator Lodge. As I read this, it apphes only to the survey and 
inspection of our own vessels. It says: 

Shall be carried out by officers of the State to which the vessel belongs. 

Mr. Alexander. Each Government may provide its own method 
of inspection. 

Senator Lodge. I do not find any fault with that, but what has 
become of our right to inspect foreign vessels in an American port ? 

Senator McCumber. That is covered by another article. 

Mr. Alexander. Yes; that is covered by another article. 

Senator Lodge. That is just what I wanted to bring out. 

Mr. Alexander. Article 60 reads as follows: 

The safety certificate issued under the authority of a coritracting State shall be 
tccept^ by the Govemmente of the other contracting States for all purposes covered 
by this convention. It shall be regarded by the Governments of the other contracting 
States as having the same force as the certificates issued by them to their own vessels. 

The Acting Chairman. That means that the certificate would be 
conclusive, and not simply prima facie. That is, a certificate borne 
by a foreign vessel commg to one of our ports would be conclusive. 
We would not be permitted to make an independent inspection here; 
^e would have to accept that certificate. 

Mr. Alexander. That section simply means that the international 
certificate shall have as great but no greater authority than a cer- 
tificate issued by our own countrj^. That is all it says. 

The Acting Chairman. A certificate issued by our own country is 
a certificate issued after inspection by our own officers. 

Mr. Alexander. Section 61 is the one you have in mind, probably, 
following this. That reads : 

Every vessel holding a safety certificate iesued by the officers of the contracting 
State to which it belongs or by persons duly authorized by that State is subject in the 
ports of ttie other contracting States to control by officers duly authorized by their 
Governments in so far a«i this control is directed toward verifying that there is on 
board a valid safety certificate and, if necessary, that the conditions of the vessel's 
Kaworthinese correspond substantially with the particulars of that certificate; that 



166 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

is to say, so that the vessel can proceed to sea without danger to the passengers and Ili9 
crew. 

In the first instance, of course, we recognize the international cer- 
tificate, subject, however, to our right to mspect that vessel to see if 
she has a valid safety certificate on board and, further, whenevei^ 
necessary, to see that the vesseFs condition at the time corresponds 
with the requirements of her safety certificate. 

I wish to call your attention to our navigation laws. Section 4400, 
of part 8, Inspection of Steam Vessels, of our navigation laws, pro- 
viaes 

Senator McCumber. Might I, before you go to that- 



Mr. Alexander. I should like to just get this in the record in 
connection with what recognition shall be given to the international 
safety certificate, if you wul pardon me. 

Senator McCumber. I wanted to get your construction of that 
word '^ necessary.'' 

Mr. Alexander. I read from a part of section 4400 of our navi- 
gation laws bearing directly upon the question under discussion: 

Provided J however ^ That when such foreign passenger steamers belong to countriea 
having inspection laws approximating those of the United States and have unexpired 
certificates of inspection issued by the proper authorities in the respective countiiei 
to which they belong, they shall be suDject to no other inspection tlum necessary tc 
satisfy the local inspectors that the condition of the vessel, her boilers, and lifensavini 
equipments are as stated in the current certificate of inspection ; but no such certificate 
of inspection shall be accepted as evidence of lawful inspection except when pre- 
sented by steam vessels of other countries which have by their laws accorded to the 
steam vessels of the United States visiting such countries the same privilege accorded 
herein to the steam vessels of such countries visiting the United States. 

Article 61 of the convention is almost in the language of our 
statute. 

Senator Lodge. That, I see, gives us the right of inspection on the 

goint of seaworthiness; that is, as far as safety at sea is concerned, 
^ut under our anaendment of 1907 to the passenger act we passed.^ 
some very stringent provisions about air space, etc., for all imnri-r 
grants coming to this country, including the right to require that 
air space. Are we deprived of the right to inspect for that purpose? 

Mr. Alexander. We are not. I will call your attention to that 
later. 

Senator Lodge. I wanted to bring that out. 

Mr. Alexander. Under section 61 we reserve the right, in the first 
instance, to inspect to see if they have this safety certificate on board. 
Then we have the right, whenever necessary, to inspect to see that 
the vessel's equipment corresponds with her certificate. 

Senator McCumber. There is where I wanted your construction of 
article 61. It reads: 

Every vessel holding a safety certificate issued by the officeis of the contracting 
State to which it belongs, or by persons duly authorized by that State, is subject in 
the ports of the other contracting; States to two things. First, the verifying that there 
is on board a valid safety certificate, and, second, if necessary, that the conditions 
of the vessel's seaworthiness correspond substantially with the particulars of that 
certificate; that is to say, so that the vessel can proceed to sea without danger to the 
passengers and the crew. 

It says, ^'if necessary.^' Who shall determine whether it is neces- 
sary? 

Mr. Alexander. The local inspector. 



f 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 167 



Senator MoCuMBEB. He does not know until after he has made the 
iavestigation whether it is necessary to investigate, and therefore 
somebody has to determine beforehand whether it is necessary ? 

Mr. Alexandeb. I will state this, that since the passage of this 
statute it has never been the practice of our Government to inspect 
foreign ships in our ports where their laws correspond to our laws 
except, as I say, to verify the fact that they have the certificate on 
board, unless something nas occurred that will require an inspection. 
For instance, if they have met with an accident at sea, or if the wire- 
less equipment is defective, etc. That comes out. Then the inspec- 
tors are on hand. 

Senator McCumbeb. Suppose they have not heard of any accident^ 
and there has been no acciaent so far as they know. Then must we 
accept as conclusive the certificate, or have we a right of our own 
volition to say we will investigate and find out ? That is what I want 
to get at. 

Hr. Alexandeb. If we have inspectors enough to perform that 
service in every instance there is nothing in this article to prevent 
us from doing that if notice comes to us of any defects. 

Senator McCumbeb. I am a little uncertain about that word 
"necessary.'' 

Senator Suthebland. As I understand the statute, that does 
away with the necessity of inspection when the laws of the country 
from which the vessel comes provide an inspection equivalent to 
our own ? 

Mr. Alexandeb. Yes, except for the purposes mentioned in article 
61. Here we have an international law. 

Senator Suthebland. But this provision here, if I understand it, 
does not carry that Umitation. It provides, ''and, if necessary, that 
the conditions of the vessel's seaworthiness correspond particularly 
with the particulars of that certificate." Suppose the country from 
which the vessel comes has not inspection laws equivalent to our 
own; suppose their standards of safety are not equivalent to ours? 

Mr. Alexandeb. Then this convention does not apply. The con- 
vention applies only to the States that ratify it, and they obligate 
themselves to make their standards the same. 

Senator Bubton. The very next paragraph, No. 62, reads: 

The privileges of convention may not be claimed in favor of any vessel unless it 
holds a proper valid safety certificate. 

That would apply to both the nations and the boats of the nations 
not joining in this convention — to the boats of the nations governed 
by tms convention if they did not have the safety certificate. 

Senator Suthebland. That appHes to the safety certificate which 
is mentioned in the convention. I do not see that that advances us. 

Mr. Alexandeb. The form of the safety certificate is given here. 
It is set out in full on page 65. 

Senator Suthebland. f should like to understand about our inspec- 
tion, because I do not. Our inspection, beyond that of ascertaining 
whether or not there is a vaHd certificate, is to ascertain that the con- 
ditions of the vessel's seaworthiness correspond substantially with 
the particulars of that certificate? 

Afr. Alexandeb. Yes. 



L 



168 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Senator Sutherland. The certificate will be issued by the count 
based upon its own laws as to standards ? 

Mr. Alexander. No; it will be based on this convention. 

Senator Sutherland. I have not read it all, but does this conven-j 
tion cover everything 

Mr. Alexander. I will call your attention to that. 

Senator Sutherland. Does it cover everything that our laws rel 
inff to standards of safety cover ? 

Mr. Alexander. It covers the standards of safety provided fori 
the convention, which is to become the international law. And 
wish to say that the standards provided for in the convention are^^ 
higher than those of any nation under existing laws. 

Senator Sutherland. Including our own ? j 

Mr. Alexander. Including our own. I do not hesitate to sayj^- 
that. If you will take our laws as to inspection of foreign vessekin _' 
our ports whose insj)ection laws approximate our own, you will con- . 
elude that we have reserved absolutely to ourselves the right to inr »: 
spect, and we have surrendered nothing in that regard. At the same ^ 
time, by this convention we provide for an international standard and)-:: 
an international certificate, which, of course, will materiallv contribute ;=r: 
to safety of life at sea, as it raises the international standard. 

Senator Hitchcock. I am much interested in that inquiry of " 
Senator Lodge, as to how we are going to proceed as to other pro- : 
visions relating to safety outside of those mentioned in Article 61. t- 

Mr. Alexander. I will get to that question about immigrants ^ 
directly. . 

The Acting Chairman. The hour of 12 o^clock having arrived, the f- 
Senate is in session. What is the pleasure of the committee! i 

Senator Pomerene. As the executive session, I understand, is 
continuing, I think we ought to be there. 

Senator Swanson. How much longer time will be necessary to 
complete this hearing ? 

The Acting Chairman. I can not determine that. Mr. Alexander, 
I apprehend that you can give us some idea as to that. 

Mr. Alexander. My only purpose was to answer the objections 
made by Mr. FurUseth, and then to ask the members of the commis- 
sion to make a brief statement with reference to the work from their 
viewpoint. \'ou will pardon me if I say here that we regard this 
convention differently from Mr. Furuseth. We think that the pro- 
vision for lifeboats — two able seamen, or efficient lifeboat men, 
drawn from the crew to man them - is comparatively unimportant as 
■compared with some of the subjects which were treated by the con- 
ference. For instance, the rules relating to the construction of a ship, 
the rules of navigation, the equipma0jr*^'ith wireless telegraphy, and 
boats and davits are all important, arid all the other equipment. I 
think they are important in the following order— safety of construc- 
tion first, safety of navigation second, and wireless telegraphy third, 
because that is one of the srreatest instrumentalities contributing to the 
safety of life at sea. Lifeboats, life rafts, and the manning of life- . 
boats and rafts come last, because they provide for an emergency that 
may not occur once in the life of a ship - an emergency which must 
be provided for in extremity. The most important thing is a good 
ship, and before you can determine the merits of this convention 
you must determine whether or not in all respects this convention is 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 169 

ice over existing requirements as to construction of ships, 
t may not meet your view or our view in one particular is no 
idge of the value of the work as a whole, 
r Hitchcock. Was this the first international conference for 

EXANDER. The first international conference for safety that 
held. . 

r Hitchcock. And suppose we fail to ratify the ccmvention; 
t is our position ? 

EXANDER. Of couree, wc aro just outside. I think the other 
/ill ratify it. 

r Hitchcock. They will be bound by it ? 
.EXANDER. They will be bound by it; wo will not. 
r SwANsoN. Has any nation ratified it yet, or had time 
3 do so? 

>EXANDER. I could not speak advisedly about that, but as 
^roed to unanimously in the conference I have reason to 
ley vnll. 

r Hitchcock. Judge .Alexander, suppose we should not ratify 
ould not be bound by it, and they would be bound by it, 
not go on and protect our own vessels by proper legislation ? 
LEXANDER. We can do that anyhow. We can raise our 
sky-high if we want to. We can provide not only for two 
ion for every lifeboat, but we can provide for a half a dozen, 
r Hitchcock. What would we lose by failure to ratify ? 
EXANDER. I think we would. We went there to raise the 
)nal standard. The United States, Canada, Australia, and 
re the only countries that have any wnrcless laws at all, and 
to bring all the signatory States up to our standard in this 
)n. We have not brought them up to our standard, but we 
ught them a long way toward it. I had much to do with 
)ur wireless act, and 1 had some pride in it, and we tried to 
international standard equivalent to our own. 
r Smith of Michigan. In lifting the standard of foreign ships 
)rotecting American passengers in very large numbers ? 
.EXANDER. Yes; whenever it was intimated there that we 
lave any ships on the high seas I said, ^'That may be true, 
urnish the passengers and the freight, and we have just as 
anding in this conierence as anyone else." That is Ine view 
ited as the commissioners of the United States, 
r Lodge. That is, you thought that for the protection of 
I lives at sea it was necessary to raise the standard of 
other nations ? 

EXANDER. Yes. I wish to say we might go to work to legis- 
)reign nations, to enforce our laws agaiiist their ships in our 
t it would entail friction and misunderstanding ana ill will, 
5 can by international agreement accompUsh the same pur- 
t is the logical, reasonable way to do it. 
r Hitchcock. Which of the nations were the least progres- 
I will phrase it the other way, which were the most pro- 
n asking for protection ? 

EXANDER. I think if you would advise with the delegates 
er nations they would say we were the most aggressive. 



I 



170 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA, ^ 

1 

I would not say we were the most progressive. I think all were 
striving to accomplish the same end in a rational way. 

Senator Hitchcock. You still have not answered that question of 
Senator Lodge. 

Mr. Alexander. What was that ? I have not concluded my 
remarks. 

Senator Lodge. There is a clause which has been pointed out to 
me which covers that. 

Mr. Alexander. If it is the purpose of the committee to go ahead 
I should be very glad to do that. 

The Acting Chairman. You will observe that article 68 reads: 

The treaties, conventions and arrangements concluded prior to this conyention 
shall continue to have full and complete effect, as regards — 

(1) Vessels excepted from the convention. 

(2) Vessels to which it applies, in respect of subjects for which the convention hac 
not expressly provided. 

It is understood that, the subject of this convention being safety of life at sea, 
questions relating to the well-being and health of passengers, and in j^urticular of emi- 
erants, as well as other matters relative to their transport, continue subject to the 
legislation of the different States. 

Senator Hitchcock. Would that not be legislation in. the States 
to which the vessels belong ? 

Senator Lodge. That means our own legislation. 

Senator Hitchcock. I understand that was inserted at the request 
of Italy. 

Senator Lodge. I do not care who suggested it, but it gives us the 
right to enforce the immigration act. 

Mr. Alexander. I was a member of the committee on certificates, 
and the question arose there with reference to sanitation and air 
space, ana all that, on emigrant ships, and it was agreed that it did 
not come within the purview of this convention, but Italy insisted 
on having it written into the article, and that was done. But if 
this convention is read from first to last it will be made clear tie 
purposes that were intended to be covered only relate to safety of life 
at sea. We say the certificate itself shall be a safety certificate. 

Senator Lodge. Italy insisted, for a very obvious reason, that 
thousands of Italian immigrants are carried both to South and 
North America on ships of other countries, but only a small per- 
centage coming by Italian ships. Italy's idea was to be enabled to 
look after the safety of her immigrants on the ships of England and 
Germany, whi :h carry enormous numbers of them both to this 
country and elsewhere. Tnat is the purpose of it. It is the same 
as our purpose, that we should be able to enfor -e our own laws for 
the sanitation of ships as before. 

Mr. Alexander. Certainly. While it was the opinion that that 
inspe tion would not be interfered with, yet to put it at rest, and at 
the suggestion of Itah , it was expressly stated m the article. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Judge Alexander, if I read the treaty 
corre: tly, somethi ig has oeen de&iitely accomplished in hull con- 
struction. By this engagement hull construction is not a mattet 
that we could with very great propriety enforce upon the foreigi^ 
countries, is it'^ 

Mr. Alexander. I think not. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. And if we have raised the standard 
of hull construction and mereby made travel at sea safer than i 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 171 

was before, that ought to be considered when we take up merely 
the question of lifeboat service and other elements of safety at sea. 
I regard the question of hull construction as the most vital thing 
that was considered in that conference, one that was beyond our 
reach, and one that will be of very great advantage if raised to a 
proper standard, which I assume you have done so far as you could 
go at least. 

Mr. Alexander. I think you have given emphasis to the most 
important provision in the convention, that relating to hull 
construction. Rear Admiral Capps, of the Navy, who was Chief 
Constructor in the Navy for many years, was chairman of that com- 
mittee. Mr. Ferguson, general manager of the Newport News 
Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., who is a graduate of Annapolis, 
and who served many years in the Navy, for part of that time as 
a constructor, was a member of that committee. I wish to say that 
we did not have any greater experts in that conference than these 
two n:en. They labored to that end, and when we come to that 
feature of the convention I wish them to give the committee their 
impressions of what was accomplished along that line. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. There is one other thourfit that I 
should Uke to suggest without taking too much time. That is, in 
reference to Mr. Baker^s visit here. I attended the meeting in 
Secretary NageFs office with the chairman of our committee. Senator 
Nelson, and I think I may saj without any hesitation whatever 
that I was impressed with the idea that Mr. JBaker came over here 
under the impression that he could satisfy the American attitude 
hj certain lifeboat concessions, and perhaps radio concessions. That 
did not satisfy me at all. It came a great ways from doirg it. At 
that first meeting I think you will recall that we all insisted that the 
question of hull construction was paramount, and that any confer- 
ence which did not take that up fairly and freely, and with a desire 
to remedy acknowledged defects, would come far short of meeting 
American expectations. 

Mr. Alexander. That is correct. A milUon dollars was spent on 
the Olympic, the sister ship of the Titanic, after the Titanic went 
down, to remedy what were regarded as defects in the construction of 
that ship. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. It was brought up to the standards 
laid down, was it not ? 

Mr. Alexander. Yes. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. I know it was a matter of consider- 
able satisfaction to find in her advertisement after she was recon- 
structed that she practically met the requirements laid down in our 
findings. 

Mr. Alexander. Of course, I can go on now, Mr. Chairman, if it is 
thepleasure of the committee. 

The Acting Chairman. What is the pleasure of the committee? 

Several Senators. Let us proceed. 

The Acting Chairman. I will put the question [putting the 
question]: Those in favor of continuing will say *^aye" and the 
contrary ''nay.'' 
(The motion to continue in session was agreed to.) 

Senator Burton. That, of course, is subject to anything unusual 

happening ? 



172 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

The Acting Chairman. Yes. ' 

Senator Pomerene. Mr. Chairman, I feel that under the circum- 
stances I ought to be in the Senate Chamber. I have no objection 
to this hearing going on if that is the desire of the committee. I 
would certainly like very much to hear this testimony, but if I can 
not hear it I will certainly read it when it is printed. 

Senator Swanson. I understand that this testimony is being 
reported. 

The Acting Chairman. Yes. Of course, it is understood if a vote 
is called in the Chamber we will adjourn. 
" Senator Pomerene. I will ask to be excused. 

The Acting Chairman. The Senator from Ohio wiQ be excused. 

Mr. Alexander. Mr. Furuseth stated that the conference was 
dominated by the shipping interests. It is not necessary for me to 
say that in my opinion that was not true. I went there with mis- 
givings and deeply solicitous that that conference might be a suc- 
cess — misgivings because I recognized that there would be repre- 
sentatives from 14 different nations with different laws, different 
customs, and different languages, and it would be difficult for us in 
the first instance to consider these questions. I was very anxious 
that the international standard might be raised. But alter asso- 
ciating for six weeks intimately with the delegates from other nations 
in that conference, I am not willing to impeach their integrity, or to 
say that they were dominated by any improper influence. And I 
thmk we went there with the purpose oi accomplishing the task 
we had on hand, and the delegates from all the nations were inspired 
by the same purpose. That was the sentiment which pervaded 
the air, that something should be done to insure greater safety of 
life at sea. 

I have spoken about the pr eliminary conferences, and why they 
were held, beginning here in Washington in December, 1912, and it is 
not necessary for me to consider that further. 

Mr. Furuseth said that that convention reenacted the treaty with 
reference to deserting seamen, and that we could not abrogate it until 
1921. Of course, I excuse him. He has zeal without knowledge. 
Article 68 is the one to which he called attention, I believe, reading: 

The treaties, conventions, and arrangements concluded prior to this convention 
shall continue to have full and complete effect, as regards — 

(1) Vessels excepted from the convention. 

(2) Vessels to which it applies, in respect of subjects for which the convention has 
not expressly provided. 

It is understood that the subject of this convention being safety of life at sea, ques- 
tions relating to the well-being and health of passengers, and in particular of emigrants, 
as well as other matters relative to their transport, continue subject to the legislation 
of the different States. 

In other words, it was made clear that this convention should not 
affect any existing treaties between the different nations, excepting 
so far as those treaties might be directly affected by the convention 
itself. It can not by any sort of construction apply to the existing 
treaties between ourselves and some 20 other nations, which provide 
for the arrest and return to the ships of deserting seamen. The 
seamen^s bill contains a provision which authorizes the President to 
ffive the necessary notice to abrogate so much of our treaties with 
foreign nations as obligate us to arrest and return deserting seamen 



f SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 173 

I to foreign ships, and that is one of the matters that we have been 
pressing on Congress. The Democratic and the Republican national 

' j^atforms both declare in favor of that provision of theseamen^s bill. 
TTiey say it is contrary to the spirit of our institutions to arrest and 
imprison a man for the violation of a civil contract, and that treaty 
is not affected in any manner whatever by this convention. I do not 
think that any one who is capable of construing this provision in the 
convention will contend for one moment that it is. 
Senator HrrcHCOCK. Was not the statement made by Mr. Furuseth 

I slightly different from that ? Was it not to the effect that this con- 
vention specifically continues in force all of those treaties which would 
have been repealed if the La FoUette bill had passed? 

Mr. Alexandee. He said until 1921 ; that that would be as soon 
as we could abrogate it. I say that there is not any foundation on 
earth for that statement. 

Senator HncHCOCK. The language in article 68, on page 26, is as 
follows: 

The treaties, conventions, and arrangements concluded prior to this convention 
shall continue to have full and complete effect. 

That is a specific recognition of the treaties, and I suppose it is a 
continuation or might be argued to be a continuation. 
Senator McCumber. But read the rest of it. It reads: 

As regards — 

!1) Vessels excepted from the convention. 
2) Vessels to which it applies, in respect of subjects for which the convention has 
lot expressly provided. 

Therefore, anything which the convention provides or anything 
which is not specially excepted from it comes within it. 

Senator Hitchcock. That is just the point. This convention does 
not touch the point of seamen who desert, and therefore it does pro- 
. vide that the old treaties apply to them. 

Mr. Alexander. Of course they would; why not? 

Senator Lodge. They would apply under all circumstances. 

Mr. Alexander. Yes; until they are repealed. 

Senator Lodge. Until they are abrogated or repealed. 

Senator HncHCOCK. This is a specific renew^al of those treaties. 

Mr. Alexander. It is not a renewal at all. It simply says that 
this convention shall not be regarded as interfering v\Tith them at all. 

Senator HncHCOCR. It does not say that. That is not the 
language. 

The Acting Chairman. It says, ^* shall continue to have full an4 
complete effect." 

Senator Hitchcock. It does not say that this convention shall 
abrogate them. It says they shall continue in foice. 

Mr. Alexander. What would you say otherwise ? 

Senator Httchcock. I think it is a specific indorsement of the 
treaties. 

Mr. Alexander. It does not have them in mind at all. 

Senator Lodge. There is no power in this convention to extend 
any treaty. 

Mr. Alexander. We want to make it clear that we are not inter- 
fering with them in any manner whatever. 



i: 



b 



174 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Senator Hitchcock. Then it might have said so, but it did not 
say so. It says they shall continue to remain in force. 

Senator McCumber. But you would not contend that continues 
them beyond the time to which they were limited by their own 
provisions, would you ? 

Senator Hitchcock. No ; but I do not think 



V 



Senator McCumber. Therefore, this does not- 



Senator Hitchcock. You do not understand my point, Senator. 
I think it would be bad faith in the United States after signing this 
convention to abrogate those treaties, as we intended to do in the 
La FoUette bill. 

Senator Sutherland. It is put in a little stronger language than 
if you said, ''That nothing herein shall be construed as aflfecting a 
treaty,^' because you put it in affirmative language, and it is an 
express reaffirmance of the treaty. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Let us not complain of affirmativd 
language in treaties. Usually it is so meaningless that both sides 
construe it as they see fit. 
/ Senator McCumber. I think you would give it that construction \ 
as a lawyer, would vou not, Senator Sutherland? You would give 
it the construction tnat it simply left the other treaties as they are? 

Senator Sutherland. We can abrogate a treaty if we want to. 
Still, here is language that makes it a little more difficult to do it. 

Senator Burton. There is one subject that could be disposed of by 
a resolution with the ratification. I do not Uke to suggest modifying 
resolutions, but it could be made to read that the ratification shall not 
be regarded as in any way doing away with the right 'to abrogate 
treaties providing for arrests of desertions. I do not think there is 
any ambiguity about it, although the language might have been made 
a little more clear to deal with other matters, aside from those men- 
tioned here in the convention. 

Mr. Alexander. You take those European nations bordering on 
the Baltic, the North Sea and the English Channel, and on the 
Mediterranean, they have a great many understandings and agree- 
ments among themselves relating to their international trade, and 
they should not be interfered with by this convention. Nobody for 
one moment, however, thought it would take away from any of the 
States the right to abrogate any of their existing treaties. 

The Acting Chairman. That is, Mr. Alexander, if any State 



should conclude to abrogate an existing treaty it would be necessary 
to couple with that abrogation article 68 of this convention in order 
to make the abrogation effective ? 

Mr. Alexander. Why, no ; the purpose of that article is simply to 
make it clear that this convention shall not apply to any subject 
except those treated in this convention and that all treaties not 
affected by the convention should be regarded as continuing in force, 
to be abrogated as the treaties themselves provide. 

Then, in reference to another matter, Mr. Furu3eth said that this 
convention practically repeals our wireless act. I wish to call atten- 
tion to article 72 of the convention. Having much to do with framing 
the wireless act, of course I was somewhat jealous on this point. The 
question arose in the conference, in view of our wireless law, the 
Canadian Jaw, and the Australian \aw , vj\va.t ^S^et tha adoption of 
this convention would have witYv. xei^Texvce* \.o o\rc 'sX^^toi^.^'s. ^^^NL^ ^nss^ 






SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 175 

ready in force, and our authority to require foreign ships in our 
>rts to be equipped with wireless according to the provisions of our 
.^w. Our law provides that all ships having on board 50 or more 
arsons shall be equipped with wireless. That applies to passenger 
lips as well as cargo ships. We have been enforcing it against all 
9ssels coming into our ports since the law was enacted. I think 

was enacted on the 24th of August, 1912. The German Govern- 
lent has been protesting against the enactment of that law or 
pplying that law to her cargo ships coming to American ports. 

was advised of that fact by correspondence transmitted to me as 
hairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
hrough the Secretary of Staters office. The wireless provisions in the 
onvention are comprehensive, and Mr. Chamberlain will speak to 
hem later. The probationarv period during which the vessels of for- 
eign nations not equipped with wireless, the vessels coming within the 
«nns of this convention, shall be equipped is two years. On their part 
ihey wanted us to agree to suspend our law from the time this conven- 
ion was signed. Mr. Chamberlain and I said, ** No, we will not agree 
to do that, but our wireless law must continue in force and effect 
and be applied to all foreign ships coming to our ports, until the 
Ist day of July, 1915, when this convention, if ratified, will go into 
©fifect; that vessels which have been equipped with wireless in the 
meantime shall not be regarded as having authority to dismantle 
-theu- wireless or to discharge their operators after that time, and 
"take the advantage of the probationary period,'^ and hence article 72 
vas written into the convention. 

I may say that as Germany had protested against the enforcement 
of our wireless law as to their ships they were reluctant to agree to 
(Ms article. 

Senator Root. Which article ? 

Mr. Alexander. Article 72. 

The article reads: 

To render ratification easier for a contracting State which, prior to the date of sip- 
atare of this convention, has laid down requirements in regard to any matter within 
tie scope of this convention, it is agreed that no vessel which has complied with 
iose reanirements before the 1st of July, 1915, may avail itself of the periods of grace 
Qowed Iby the convention, in order to cease to comply with those requirements. 

Of course, it is couched in general language. It does not mention 
raeless, but it was intended to meet tne situation created by our 
vireless laws and to make clear that the foreign cargo vessels which 
lave complied with our wireless law prior to July 1, 1915, should not 
»ake advantage of the probationary period. I do not know of a 
vessel of tinv nation to-day which carries a large number of passen- 
gers that does not have a wireless equipment. Those of Great 
Britain, France, and Germany are equipped with wireless, although 
they have no law which requires it, but public sentiment requires it, 
just as it requires lifeboats for all. 

Senator Hitchcock. Can you state in a few^ words the difference ^ 
letween our law regarding wireless and the convention ? 

Mr. Alexander. You will find it stated there with great care in 
the report which I made to the President, but I would prefer for 
Mr. Chamberlain to explain it, because he was a member oi the com- 
mittee in the conference which had that subject under consideration. 

Mr, Furuseth further said that the convoivlVow \i^Tav\\j^ ^'!iissiC\Si.^ 
ships to continue the use of the present \\ie\yo«A) ^c\>o[\^\s\ft^\i ww^ 



176 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA, 



) 



1920, no matter whether rotten, worn out, or worthless for tb^ 
purpose of saving Ufe. I am addressing practical business imV" 
Following the Titanic disaster most ^ the ocean liners wer^ 
reequipped with lifeboats and life-saving appliances. They ar< 
new inventions in the way of lifeboats and life rafts. Take th^ 
Lindun lifeboat. We went to the East India Docks, and we sa\* 
experiments with it. We saw a new type of lifeboat invented 
by a German. We saw exhibitions of that boat. We also sa^ 
a pontoon life raft. All the nations undertake to utilize thi 
best type of eauipment, but those vessels which have alreadv beec 
equipped with lifeboats and life rafts of the existing recognizea typeg 
are not obliged by the terms of this convention to discard tneir preseni 
equipment until after 1921, but if those lifeboats, life rafts, life buoys 
and life jackets are unseaworthy or rotten or worn out there is no pre- 
tense that they would be permitted to use them, because by the vei^ 
terms of this article 61 we may inspect the vessels to see thai 
their equipment corresponds with their certificate, that the vessel 
when it goes to sea is in a seaworthy condition, having in view th^ 
safety of those on board. I apprehend that no one would seriously 
contend that if the boats were rotten or unseaworthy, or any other 
part of the eq^uipment was not fit for the intended use, vesseb 
would be permitted to use them for one day. And yet that is tli»! 
contention of the gentleman, but unquestionably he is wrong about 
it. There is no color whatever for that contention. 

Mr. Furuseth says that if we ratify this convention we will be pre- 
vented from raising our standards. Of course you know that is not 
correct. He is incorrect in that. We could make our standards as : 
high as we please without reference to the international standard* 
We can not make it any lower, but we can raise it as much higher as 
we please. Instead of a minimum of the efficient lifeboat hands for 
every hf eboat we could have a score if we want them. But if we 
ratify this convention we must make our equipment equivalent, at 
least, to the international standard, but we can go beyond that as 
much as we please. That certainly would not be m violation of the 
convention. 

Senator Sutherland. It would prevent our raising the standard 
of foreign vessels clearing from our ports ? 

Mr. Alexander. Certainly; and we do not undertake to do that 
now. We have had regard to the fact that foreign nations control 
their own vessels ; that they have a deep interest in the safety of 
life at sea, and our statute expressly provides that where their laws 
are approximately the same as our own we wall recognize their 
certificates. 

Mr. Furuseth has criticized the action of the American commis- 
sioners, and that was one of the questions to which I think one of the 
Senators called attention. I was chairman of the delegation. Imme- 
diately after arriving in London I arranged for a committee room and 
provided ourselves with all the necessary equipment. We had regular 
meetings of our commissioners to consider all the subjects that would 
come before the conference. We felt that if we would do effective 
work in that conference we should at least agree among ouraelves; that 
one delegate could not go into that conference contending for one 
thing and another for another. Hence, take the committee on con- 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 177 



r«truction; we discussed the questions relating to construction and 
agreed upon a policy. We agreed that we would raise the standard 
I as high as possible. And I want to say that Admiral Capps, Mr. ^ 
Ferguson, Mr. Smith, and Mr. McBride, who was the expert adviser, '^ 
[ did their utmost aJon^ that line, and they did splendid work, 
i Another question wnich came up was lifeboats. We discussed that 
question and agreed that in the conference we would insist upon life- 
boats for all, and General Uhler was so instructed. On the question 
' of wireless we discussed our wireless laws and instructed Mr. Cham- 
berlain and Capt. BuUard to bring the international standard up as 
near to our standard as possible, and they worked in good faitn to 
accomplish that purpose. 

With reference to the manning of lifeboats there was a division of 

opinion. Most of these gentlemen are seafaring men. I do not 

think I disparage Mr. Furuseth when I say they have seen more sea 

service than he has and are quite as well qualified to determine what 

is necessary, as far as the equipment of lifeboats is concerned. Gen. 

Uhler has spent more than 30 years at sea as an engineer, and of 

course these Navy officers had seen long sea service. Capt. Bert- 

holf has spent years in the Bering Sea, the stormiest waters, nearly, 

on the globe. They all agreed that it would be better to insist upon 

eflScient lifeboat men. They will explain that later on. They took 

the view that three years' service on board a modern steamer did not 

qualify a man for lifeboat service nor did it make a man an able 

seaman within the true definition of that word. All the knowledge 

I have of seamanship had been gained from reading Cooper's sea 

tales, ftnd Lafitte the rirate, Dana's Two Years Before the Mast, and 

from Andrew Furuseth, and in hearings before the Committee on the 

Merchant Marine, until the last two or three years. I had not had 

any seafaring experience. 

I forffot to mention also Dana's Two Years Before the Mast, which 
is the classic on that subject. But that harked back to the old times 
when they had the old type of seamen on the square-rigged vessel, 
and that type has almost passed. But there is nothing in the service 
of a man on the deck of a modem steamer that would bring him up 
to the standard of able seaman as defined in the past on a square- 
rigged vessel, nor is there anything in this duty now, these gentle- 
men contended, that would demand the qualifications that were 
necessary on the square-rigged vessel of the years ago. The com- 
mittee stood, as stated, 10 to 2. I voted with Mr. Furuseth because 
I still had in view the old type of seamen. They were against me, 
though. This whole question was thrashed out. Mr. Furuseth com- 
plains and says he was gagged in that conference. We agreed in 
comrnittee that on certain policies we would stand for certain things, 
and that it was the duties of the members of the committee in tne 
conference to present a solid front and to advocate them if we hoped 
to accomplish our purposes. 

Senator McCumber. I was just about to ask you what would have y 
been the result had you gone before the general convention so divided 
upon any proposition ? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. It would have been disaster, or at least we would 
have nullified our influence. But notwithstanding that rule, I want 
to say that Mr. Furuseth violated it in every respect. There was not 

88dMi— 14 ^la 



178 SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 

a man in that conference who expressed his mind more freely or of te 
than he did. He came to me about it and said, ''I shoiud like \ 
express my views in that conference/' That he might not have ar 
reason to object I said, ''You just go ahead and say anything y( 

f lease, and force your views on this conference if you can,'' becau 
regarded him as sincere, and I wanted him to have the benefit 
doing so. And while General Uhler- and Capt. Bullard stood i 
efficient lifeboat men, he stood for the two able seamen, and in t 
meetings of the conunittee he tried to enforce his view. 

We frequently met at Government entertainments and dinners, a 
I think he preached that doctrine in season and out of season, I 
as the committee here might have some doubts as to the merits of 1 
contention, I might suggest that in that convention there were m( 
than 30 Ufelong seafaring men, and yet there was not one to take 1 
view of Mr. Furuseth. So it would raise a reasonable doubt as 
the merits of his contention. I think you will agree that I adopi 
the proper course after these recommendations were in. I called 1 
commissioners together. I had no knowledge of what had been dc 
in the other committees, except as I got it in a desultory way as 
went along, but we went over these reports in detail and discusj 
their merits and agreed upon them. 

Senator HrrcHCOCK. Did the conference reject the idea of 1 
qualifications of able seamen because it thought they would not 
efficient ? 

Mr. Alexander. The conference adopted this view, as I understa 
it, that three years' service on deck did not itself qualify a man as 
efficient lifeboat man. 

Senator HrrcHCOCK. Did the conference reject the idea that an a 
seaman would be an efficient Uf eboat man ? 

Mr. Alexander. Yes. 

Senator Lodge. Necessarily. 

Mr. Alexander. Not necessarily by reason of his service. 

Senator HrrcHCOCK. I am not talking about that, but an a 
seaman is a standard of the sea service. I want to know whetl 
you think that an able seaman would not be an efficient lifeboat m 
or whether the conference thought so. 

Mr. Alexander. Not within the definition of the seamen's t 
necessarily. 

Senator Hitchcock. I am not speaking of any definition of 1 
seamen's bill. There is a standard Jknown 

Mr. Alexander. Mr. Furuseth has gone over in great detail in t 
memorial the defining of the duties of an able seaman. Now, if a n 
is qualified to perform all those duties, I should say he was an able s 
man, and that would include his ability to handle lifeboats. 

Senator Hitchcock. An able seaman, then, would be able to han 
a lifeboat ? 

Mr. Alexander. Unquestionably. 

Senator Hitchcock. Why did they reject that able seaman? 

Mr. Alexander, For this reason . They did not reject the idea of 
able seaman. I do not want to discuss the seamen's bill, except tl 
it provides that three years' service on deck of a vessel shall qualif 
man as an able seaman and that each Ufeboat shall be equipped vi 
at least two able seamen of that class — that is, two men who hi 
served three years on board ship without reference to their ability 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 179 

indle a lifeboat. It is simply that three years^ service on board ship 
lall be sufficient to qualify mm for lifeboat service. 

Senator McCumber. How does a man become an able seaman on a ^ 
lodern steamer, it I may ask ? 

Mr. Alexander. It can not be done unless you add to the duties 
rescribed in the seamen's bill that he shall be examined with refer- 
Qce to his fitness to handle a lifeboat for that service. 

Senator Hitchcock. I understand that Mr. Furuseth takes the 
osition that an efficient lifeboat man is not the proper standard of 
ifety for an employee handling a lifeboat. What I want to know is 
hether that as a standard would be efficient; that is, an able sea- 
an? 

Mr. Alexander. Theonehehasinmind,and whichisdefinedin the 
amends bill, is not. 

Senator McCumber. That is, a mere three years on a modem 
3amer would not constitute efficiency ? 

Mr. Alexander. I do not think scrubbing decks, rubbing brasses, ' 
d performing the ordinary duties of a seaman aboard ship qualifies 
3Qan for that service, unless he is examined and qualifies himself for 
at service. 

Senator Hitchcock. Is the standard of able seaman rejected 
cause of the expense it involves to the steamboat ? 
Mr. Alexander. I think I can state the viewpoint. I can better 

ustrate 

Senator Hitchcock. I would like to know the reason that the able 
aman is rejected. 

Mr. Alexander. I will tell you — of course they have no such law. 
ike Germany; it has no law defining what an able seaman shall be, 
id that is true of most of the nations. They say this, that there 
ould be efficient lifeboat men, but they should be drawn indiscrim- 
ately from the crew of the vessel, that they should not be confined 

the deck crew. That if you confined them to the deck crew, and 
en required vessels to carry lifeboats for all, you would necessarily 
crease the deck crew from 25 to 50 per cent beyond the needs of 
le vessel, and thereby create an unnecessary burden upon the ship, 
aat was the view that was taken, and that was accepted, but I want 

call your attention briefly to article 54 of the convention. There 
e other gentlemen here who can present that view more clearly 
lan I can. I am a landlubber myself. It reads: 

There must be for each boat or raft required a minimum number of certificated 
eboat men. 

Mr. Furuseth says we only require three efficient lifeboat men to 
Etndle a lifeboat. The seamen's bill only requires two able seamen, 
ut that is not the complement of the crew of the lifeboat. Each 
feboat, under the seamen's bill, must have at least two able seamen, 
nder the international convention, each lifeboat must have not 
!S3 than three men, certificated as experts, or efficient lifeboat men. 
hen the balance of the crew, as Capt. Wescott said, depending 
pen the size of the lifeboat, may be increased to 5, 7, 9, 11, or more, 
ut there must be at least two of the standard of efficiency provided 
i the seamen's bill or in this convention. The officers themselves 
iperintend the lowering of the lifeboats, and as far as they can be 
latrihuted, after the people have been gotten into tke lifeboata 



180 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

those officers go into the lifeboats themselves. It does not eliminafctf 
the deck crew. It simply extends the personnel of the ship from whiA 
the lifeboat men may De drawn. The iMsitania has a crew of nearbf 
900 men and only 60 or 70 of them, including the officers, are in tU 
deck crew. If you are going to provide two able seamen for ever^ 
Ufeboat, you have got to increase the deck crew beyond the neecfi 
of the vessel, or else draw them from the balance of the crew. Is it 
unreasonable to say that of that great crew, enough additional men 
of proved efficiency, certificated as such by this convention, may be 
found to perform this service. Mr. Furuseth says that the firemen 
are on duty in the fireroom. Only one-third of them are on duty al 
a time. The others are in the forecastle, and may be drawn front 
The men of the steward's department are not on duty all the timS 
I presume some of you, if not all of you, have traveled back and fort! 
across the Atlantic. You have seen the men in the deck crew, and 
you have seen the men in the steward's department. Man for maa 
m intelligence, and if properly trained, for trustworthiness in hand 
ling a Ufeboat, I imagine you would trust the men selected from tt 
steward's department, as well as the men from the deck departmenl 
Is there anything about service as coal passers or firemen, an occa 
pation which requires great physical strength, to disqualify them, i 
properly trained and certificated as such, to handle a lifeboat? 
do not Jbhink it admits of argument. 

Senator SuthJjrland. I noticed on looking over the rosters of i 
good many of these ships that all I saw had among their men "sea 
men," under that name. 

Mr. Alexander. Yes. 

Senator Sutherland. What is meant by a seaman on a modem 
steamship ? 

Mr. Alexander. In the various nations it means diflFerent thingfe 
Germany does not have any definition of ''able seaman.'' Theyw 
not say how long he must serve at sea. '^ 

Senator Sutherland. I simply wanted to get, if I could, what i|b 
meant by the term ''seaman,' as you find it — not "able seaman* 
but simply "seaman." 

Mr. Alexander. Those who serve on board ship at sea in som^ 
capacity. f- 

Senator Burton. I will say in regard to that that we have, so Ifi 
as our own boats are concerned, a definition by statute. 

Mr. Alexander. That refers to the crew. 

Senator Burton. "Every person who shall be employed or ei 
gaged to serve in any capacity on board the same" — tnat is, 
vessel — "shall be deemed and taken to be a seaman." 

Senator Sutherland. That is not what is meant when you 
the term in these rosters. For example, you take the ships plyjnj 
on the Pacific, whether owned by this country or other countries 
I notice on one particular ship there are 12 men designated as "s^ 
men," and others designated in other ways, showing that they dis- 
tinguish between them. 

Senator Lodge. Those are deck hands, are they not? 

Senator Burton. I have had occasion to examine this subject 
and inquired of quite a number of persons for a definition. There i 
an increasing tendency to use the term "seaman" for every one 
board in any capacity, but the old idea was that a man who was 




SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 181 

the deck; who had to do with the sailmg, was an able seaman, but 
as the men who are on board are more and more assigned to other 
duties, the term "seaman" is becoming to be a more general term. 
SRiat provision in our statute is rather m response to that. I think 
ijou will find in many cases it is used in the way we have used the 
Jerm "sailor" in some of those rosters. 

^ Senator Sutherland. Evidently it was not used in that general 
jense on these various ships. I took a number of them, ana I no- 
ticed one in particular I had in mind where there were on board ship 
1 men desi^ated "seamen.'' They had 12 lifeboats. In designat- 
the stations which the various members of the crew were to 
upy in case of necessity, they had taken 1 seaman for each of 11 
eboats, and when they reached the twelfth, thev had rim out of 
en and they put some one else in. I noticed all the way through 
fliere that seamen were regarded of great importance, that just so 
liur as seamen were available, they were designated upon these life- 
ats. For example, there was one seaman for each Ufeboat, and, 
hen they came to the stewards on some lifeboats there were none 
t all, and on others there were two or three, indicating, at least to 
ly mind, that the seaman was regarded as a man peculiarly fitted to 
ndle a lifeboat. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. It is not a great surprise that you can 

fact find a proper definition for what an able seaman is because they 

' ve become so scarce and they have been protected so httle that 

eir calling has been jeopardized every time a ship sailed by men 

thered from parks and highways, and if occasionally one has turned 

an that name is an indication that he might have been on board 

ip once before. That is about all. 

Mr. Alexander. I should say that if a man has not seen prior ser- 
vice, either in a fishing fleet or on board of a sailing vessel — particu- 
Irly a square-rigged vessel — there is no opportunity for him to 
ualify himself to become an able seaman anyhow. In other words, 
e ordinary duties on a steamer will not qualify him to fulfiU the old- 
ne definition of able seaman. 
'■ Senator Sutherland. But still, is it not true that if a man staj^s 
3tta the deck of a steamer for three years, that during that time he is 
obliged to handle tackle and rope and lifeboats and equipment of 
ijhat kind, that makes him a practically useful man in handlmg a life- 
boat in time of danger? 

Mr. Alexander. If he is required to handle lifeboats — and this 
.convention provides that he shall be. This convention applies as 
fDXLch to the deck crow of a vessel a it does to the other departments 
of a vessel's crew, and here is what it says : 

I There must be, for each boat or raft required, a minimum number of certificated 
lifeboat men. The minimum total number of certificated lifeboat men is determined 
w the provisions of article 47 of the annexed regulations. 

The sulocation of the certificated lifeboat men to each boat and raft remains within 
fte discretion of the master, according to the circumstances. 

By "certificated lifeboat men " is meant any member of the crew — 

That includes the deck crew — 

who holds a certificate of eflSciency issued under the authority of the administration 
«Dncerned, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the aforementioned article 
m the annexed regulations. 
} Article 48 of the regulations deals with the manning of the boats. 



Y 



182 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

I wish to call your attention to certificate of the lifeboat men. I 
is provided for in article 47 : 

In order to attain the special lifeboat man's certificate provided for in Chapter IV 
lifesaving appliances, article 54 of the convention, the applicant must prove that h 
has been trained in all the operations connected with launching lifeboats and the us 
of oars; that he is acquainted with the practical handling of the Boats themselves; and 
furtiier, that he is capable of understanding and answering the orders relative to life 
boat service. 

There shall be for each boat or raft a number of lifeboat men at least equal to tha 
specified in the following table. 

And it is specified that the minimum number of certificated life 
boat men shall be from three to seven, according to the size of th 
lifeboat. 

Now, as to the manning, article 48 provides: 

An officer, petty officer, or seaman — 

In this instance, I would say that would be one of the deck crew 
under the definition of the seamen's bill an able seaman — 

shall be placed in chaige of each boat or pontoon raft; he shall have a list of its crem 
and shall see that the men placed under nis orders are acquainted with their severs 
duties and stations. 
A man capable of working the motor shall be assigned to each motor boat. 

Because there are certain instances where they may have a moto; 
boat. As regards the motor boat, that would be an efficient mean^ 
of saving life under certain conditions — 

The duty of seeing that the boats, pontoon rafts, and other life-saving appliances an 
at all times ready for use shall be assigned to one or more officers. 

Senator Sutherland. This article 48 simply requires that the 
appUcant shall have been trained in all operations connected with the 
launching of lifeboats ? 

Mr. Alexander. Yes, sir. 

Senator Sutherland. It does not even require that he shall be 
familiar with lifeboats at sea. He may have gained all his expe- 
rience in still waters. 

Mr. Alexander. It says that each nation shall prescribe those 
qualificatidns. If this convention is ratified it will be incumbent 
upon us, so far as our vessels are concerned, to provide just what 
examination shall be made, what test of efficiency shall be made; 
and as to the ocean service, I suppose they will be required to test 
their ability to handle lifeboats at sea. It would not be necessary 
to apply the same standard on the Chesapeake Bay or Long Island 
Sound, or inland waters of the United States, but I assume that 
when we undertake to enforce this provision of the convention w€ 
will do so by proper legislation, and each Government undertakes to 
do the same. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Order drills, etc. ? 

Mr. Alexander. Yes, sir. We have a rule now, as far as that ifl 
concerned, and I want to say that as far as lowering lifeboats in i 
rough sea is concerned being a test of efficiency, I doubt if an^ 
Government will ever make any such provision as that, because it 
involves too great a risk of human life. I crossed the Atlantic 
twice — once last October and again in January — and on four dayi 
when we were going over and on four days when returning I do noi 
believe a lifeboat could have been launched with safety at all, as th 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 183 

sea was so rough. In going over, the captain remarked one day that 
he would not take upon himself the responsibility of ordering a 
orew into a boat to rescue a man if he had fallen overboard, because 
it would have meant to sacrifice the crew in the boat. 

The Titanic went down under ideal conditions, as far as life-saving 
jwas concerned. The sea was smooth and if they had had lifeboats 
eaough all the people on board could have been saved. If she had 
ione down on any one of the four days I mentioned, going over on the 
Mtie, or ajiy one of the first four days of the seven coming back on 
tiie Olympic, I do not think there would have been many of them 
laved, I do not care how many lifeboats they had had, or how well 
&ey had been equipped, because conditions were such that boats 
could not have lived. I wish to call your attention to the following: 

Article L. 

muster list. 

The muster list shall assign duties to the different members of the crew in con 
•fiction with— 
a) The closing of the water-tight doors, valves, etc. 
6) The equipment of the boats and rafts generally. 
e) The launching of the boats attached to the davits. 

d) The general preparation of the other boats and tJie pontoon rafts. 

e) The muster of tne passengers. 
The extinction of nre. 

e muster list shall assi^ to the members of the stewards' department their 
ral duties in relation to the passengers at a time of emergency. These duties shall 
include — * 

(a) Warning the passengers. 

(b) Seeing that mey are dressed and have put on their life jackets in a proper 
banner. 

(e) Assembling the passengers. 

id) Keeping order in the passages and on the stairways, and, generally, controlling 
Ihe movements of the passengers. 

Hie muster list shall speciiy definite alarm si£;nals for calling all the crew to their 
Vtttand fire stations, and shall give full particulars of these signals. 

Also to — 

Article LI. 

MUSTERS AND DRILLS. 

Ifiusters of the crew at their boat and fire stations, followed by boat and fire drills, 
Unectively, shall be held at least once a fortnight, either in port or at sea. An entry 
Aul be made in the oflBicial log book of these drills, or of the reasons why they could 
[lot be held. 

[Different groups of boats shall be used in turn at successive boat drills. The drills 
mA inspections shall be so arranged that the crew thoroughly understand and are 
Incticed in the duties they have to perform, and that all the boats and pontoon rafts 
•n tihe ship with the gear appertaining to them are always ready for immediate use. 

Now, will anyone say that the conference was remiss in its duty 
in undertaldng to provide competent men to man these lifeboats and 
to meet emergencies that might arise ? But, in order to do that, is 
^ necessary to keep a crew on board all the while without any other 
itv for them to perform in order to meet these emergencies ? 
The ship's crew is organized for fire drill, too. Why not have an 
apendent fire department on board ship and an independent life- 
;ving crew on board ship? It might be done. It would involve 
very large expense, but it is necessary. The representatives of all 
e nations insisted that from their ships' crew efficient men might be 



184 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

selected for this purpose. As my attention has been called to it, 
our battleships. Why do they take gunners from the crew? They 
discover the man who can fire the gun, and he becomes expert in that, 
and he can be drawn from any part of the ship's crew. He does not 
have to be an officer with epaulets. If they take enlisted men in the 
Navy for gunners, is it possible simply because a man is in the steward*g 
department or the fire department or the engine room he can not 
qualify for service as a lifeooat hand and that we may not by reason- 
able rules and regulations prescribe the qualifications of these men? 
Now the trouble with Mr. Furuseth is — and I say it in all kindness— 
that he went to that conference representing the seamen's union. He 
did not take the larger view that he was there representing the great 
body of people who go down to the sea in ships, and just as soon as 
he found that his contention in favor of two able seamen for every 
lifeboat would not be accepted by the convention, he became dis^ 
couraged. He wanted to leave just as soon as that one question was 
determined by his committee. 

We insisted that he should wait at least imtil they had made aj 
report. He was present when we reviewed the whole work of the| 
convention. He said here that he thought the work of the com- 
mittee on construction was good work; he gives that his unqualified 
indorsement. Well, it was for us to determine, after taking the 
view of the whole matter, whether or not this convention would 
accomplish, in substantial measure, the purposes for which we had met, 
and that is the view, Senators, that I want you to take; not that we 
have accomplished all our purposes, not that all we stood for was 
agreed to in that conference, but I do say that when you take all the 
provisions of this convention and weigh them with care you will find 
it makes the international standard liigher than that of our own ' 
country or any other country, and I do not believe, simply to gratify i 
Mr. Furuseth's contention that the convention should have provided 
for two able seamen for every lifeboat, although you may feel that it 
is just, tJiat you can afford to fail to ratify this convention. j 

Senator Hitchcock. Your delegation first agreed that you would 
stand for a proposition for lifeboats for everyone on board? 

Mr. Alexander. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. You had to surrender that part of it? 

Mr. Alexander. No, sir; we did not surrender it. 

Senator Hitchcock. You agreed finally to a provision for 75 per 
cent ? 

Mr. Alexander. In a certain event. I am going to have Gen. 
Uhler speak with regard to that provision. The convention does pro- 
A'ide Hfeboats for all except in certain extreme cases, but I prefer to 
have him take that up. 

Senator Hitchcock. Gen. Uhler will take that up ? 

Mr. Alexander. Yes, sir. I want to thank tne committee for 
hearing me so patiently. 

(The committee here took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.) 

after recess. 

The committee reassembled at the conclusion of the recess at2f' 
o 'dock p. m. 
The Acting Chairman. Have yow ftm^\kfc^ Ncywx ^^.^^5s^'s^^%\ 

Uexander ? 






SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 185 

• Mr. Albxandeb. Yes, sir. Capt. Cooper, of the American com- 
mksion, who is the ranking memoer of the committee on safety of 
i;liftvigation; is present, and I would be glad to have the committee 
Niear nim for a lew minutes. 

RATEMElfT OF CAPT. OEOBOE F. GOOPEB, UNITED STATES 
HAV7, HTDSOOBAPHEB, NAVT DEPABTMEITT. 

Capt. CooPEK. Senators, you will find the subject with which I 
had to do, as chairman of the committee, or subcommittee, on safety 
(rf navigation, under chapter 3, beginning on page 9 of the Senate 
Document entitled "International Conference on Safety of Life at 



Capt. Bertholf , present captain commandant of the Revenue-Cutter 
Service — ^and than whom, I shall take the liberty of saying, there is no 
better seainan in this country or any other, meaning by the term 
"seaman" a man who knows all about the sea in every respect — 
was associated with me on that committee and stood by me in many 
severe fights. Every one of the articles which you will find under 
diapter 3 — ^I may say I think every one of them, and if I am wrong 
I hope Capt. Bertholf will correct me — every one except one or two 
minor ones under article 14, which refers to the regulations for pre- 
venting collisions at sea, international rules, those, every one, except 
one or two of the minor items in that rule, came from tne delegation 
from the United States. Thoy had been carefully prepared and 
considered before we left this country bv a committee oi which I was 
chairman and on which Capt. Bertnoli, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Put- 
nam, Lighthouse Commissioner, and Prof. Henry, of the Weather 
Bureau, served with me, and after we had gathered all this information, 
after much delay and very much correspondence with people who go 
to sea. The first article under that chapter 3 simply designates 
"every vessel" imder this chapter for the purpose of attempting to 
compel every vessel of every kind, except m some instances sailing 
vessels, to be governed by this particular chapter only, because it 
relates solely to the safety of navigation, safety of navigation being, 
of course, the next important point in connection with a ship to her 
safety of construction. 

Article 6 deals with the ice-patrol, or rather the ice-])atrol and 
derelict destruction service combined. Up to the time of the sink- 
ing of the Titanic there had been no method of systematic discovery 
and reporting of ice in the steamship tracks prescribed by the differ- 
ent steamers in crossing the Atlantic. It had been the custom for 
many years for the great steamship companies plyiiig between this 
country and Europe to travel in what we call prescribed lanes across 
the Atlantic, and they rarely deviated from those. During the 
summer time, of course, the ice comes down from the north and gets 
athwart those lanes, but to the time of the sinking of the Titanic 
there had been no standard and no real patrolling of these lanes. 
Since that disaster the United States has for two years patrolled 
those lanes and has done it very efficiently, and the efficiency of the 
service has been testified to by many letters and by manv words. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. What is the expense of that, do you 
know? 

f . 



186 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Capt. Cooper. No, sir; I could not say exactly. Of course, so far 
as the Navy Department is concerned, the ships are in commission 
anyway and the expense incidental to that includes really only the 
coal they burn. I would suppose it would be in the neighborhood of 
twenty or thirty thousand dollars. It is estimated in this interna- 
tional convention, to cover all charges for coal and everything else, 
that $200,000 here will cover the entire expense of ice patrol and 
derelict destruction. 

Senator Smfth of Michigan. I notice the treaty leaves the ques- 
tion of lanes to be traveled entirely discretionary with the vessel com- 
panies themselves, but you are obliged to publish those rules. I sup- 
pose that is for the purpose of disclosing a plan. ^^ 

Capt. Cooper. They do so now. They publish them and we are 
veiy careful in the Hydrographic Oflice to keep shipping up to date 
on those tracks. That has been done for a year and of course it will 
be more carefully done in the future under the regulations? That 
article 6 provides for the establishment of those two service 

Article 7 provides for the proportion of the expense \iztich each 
nation shall bear under this service. Whereas for the pasOwo years 
the United States has paid the whole of it, she now payspunder the 
convention, only 15 per cent of that. _ 

v Senator McCumber. And the whole cost would be about a couple 
of hundred thousand dollars ? 

Capt. Cooper. That is the estimate; yes, sir. It probably will 
not exceed that, I think. That includes, of course, the ice patrol and 
derelict destruction service. Up to the time of this convention the 
United States had destroyed derelicts in proximity to her shores, and 
she has also, as Capt. Bertholf well knows, sent the Seneca, which is 
a vessel built for that service, way out in midocean to destroy a 
derelict in the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean east of a line 
drawn from Cape Sable to a point situated in latitude 34° north 
and longitude 70° west, and any derelict that is destroyed eastward 
of that line will now be charged to the international fund, which has 
never been done heretofore. 

Senator McCumber. Will you please explain to me what you 
mean by a '^ derelict^' ? I want to know if it simply includes floating 
vessels or vessels that have gone down. 

Capt. Cooper. Floating only, because the others are so fajr gone 
that they are not dangerous to navigation. '' Derelict," of course, 
means anything that is dangerous to navigation. Of course, some- 
times logs are dangerous, but a vessel would not be sent out to destroy 
them, because they drift rapidly, and even if they did not drift they 
axe not a sufficient menace to warrant sending a vessel after them. 
But very many derelicts are abandoned ships, and that is undoubtedly 
what is meant there by ^'derelicts," and that, of course, will be the 
one thing that a vessel wiU be sent out for. 

Senator Hitchcock. You say logs are dangerous ? 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir; they are dangerous to small vessels, of 
course. Sometimes two or three logs boimd together get adrift. La 
fact, one of our discussions on the subcommittee on ''Perils to navi- 
gation*' — or ''Safety of navigation,'' as it was called in the conven- 
tion — one of our discussions there dealt for some time with that very 
matter. The Germans complained bitterly of the fact that their 
ships frequently ran into logs. I mean a raft of logs which had been 



1- 



1 . 



ili 

i: 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 18T 

bound together, part having become unbound and drifting. I told 
the German delegate that it was the first complaint I had ever heard 
and I would look it up when I got home; that I doubted if the United 
States had any law on the subject, but if that were a menace it ought 
to be corrected. I told him his was the first complaint I had heard 
at all as to that particular feattire. 

Article 8 deals with the compulsion of reporting dangers to navi- 
gation — ^ice and anything else that might be dangerous to naviga- 
Son — which is met by a ship. At the present time tJie master of a 
vessel is not boimd to report these dangers to navigation. He does 
it generally. That point I made clear in the conference, or in our 
committee, that he did usually report them, but he was not bound to 
do it. This convention binds lum to report these menaces to 
navigation. 

The Acting Chaerman. Are those entered on the log under the 
new arrangement? 

Capt. Cooper. No, sir. I think there is no provision for entering 
them on the log, but, of course, a copy of the radiograms sending 
liiem wiU be on board the ship they are reported to, or if they are 
reported to my office the copy of the radiogram will be there. 

I think there is no provision in the convention for recording such 
things in the log. Of course, the probability is that if it is a menace 
to navigation the captain wiU record it m his log, although he is not 
compelled to. But he is compelled to report it. 

Article 9 prescribes specifically about the radiotelegraph installa- 
tion, and refers to article 2 of the regulations. That article deals 
with the special signal for reporting menaces to navigation. We have 
an emergency signal now which is S. O. S. in the international code. 
If a ship is in distress she sends out that signal but under these regu- 
lations also she now uses a special signal to send out warnings about 
dangers to navigation to other ships. 

Article 10 is one for which Capt. Bertholf and I fought for three 
days in the committee.^ It was enunciated of course by Lord 
Mersey in his investigation, and I think, perhaps, Senator Smith 
mentioned it in his investigation — that is, that the master of a ves- 
sel is bound to proceed at night at a moderate speed when ice is 
reported upon his course or alter his course so as to get well clear of 
the danger zone. That was one of the most important things in 
the convention and it seemed to me from the point of view of safety 
at navigation, particularly in the trans-Atlantic lanes in the ice re-^ 

S"on— if it had no -other result than that it was worth going after, 
)cause I think I may safely say that if that article had been m foree 
at the time of the Titanic disaster she would never have struck the 
bei^. I have on file in my office —which I keep locked in a safe for 
fear it will get adrift— a radiogram from the Hamburg-American 
steamer America^ which was transmitted through the Titanic itself 
giving the location of the iceberg on the day which she struck. There- 
fore, if tius article had been in force at the time of the Titanic disaster 
I do not think there would have been a disaster. 

Senator §mith of Michigan. It was the same berg, was it not ? 

Capt. Cooper. It prob£S)ly was, but I do not dare to say that it 
was the one she struck. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. That is the impression. 



188 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Capt. Cooper. That is the impression, and it is the logical con- 
clusion. 

Article 11 is simply a routine matter, dealing with signalmg. 
Some of the delegates felt that the methods of signaling were not 
quite adequate; tnat the method of signaling by lamp at night was 
not quite adequate, so we inserted this simply to cover that. 

Article 12 is also a very important one, from the fact that it forbids 
the distress signal — the international distress si^al prescribed by 
the international regulations for preventing colhsions from being 
used for any other purpose. There are certam distress simals — rock- 
ets - which can now be used for other purposes. But article 12 forbids 
their being used for any other purpose than the ones for distress. It 
was claimed by some or the officers at the time of the Titanic disaster 
that possibly the captains of one or two of the steamers which were 
under discussion did not realize those signals, so now we have for- 
bidden the use of signals of distress for any other purpose whatever. 

In article 13 we left the steamer lanes to the discretion of the steam- 
ship companies. That refers to the selection of the routes across the 
North Atlantic. That we had to accept because we could not per- 
suade the committee to accept the Government prescription of the 
rules. Capt. Bertholf and I tried for several days to get that done, 
but we were unable to get it through, so we took as an alternative, 
or as the next best thing, the prescription of the ice patrol interna- 
tionally. 

Senator Sutherland. What was the objection to the lane being 
prescribed ? 

Capt. Cooper. One of their chief objections was that in case the 
lanes had to be moved — of course, now, as soon as ice is reported on 
the tracks the custom is that the tracks are moved farther south — 
and one of their chief objections was that the Government prescribing 
these lanes would not be able to act so quickly as the steamship com- 
panies. That is perfectly true. Of course, my answer to that, and 
the natural answer, is that the proper thing to do was to prescribe a 
lane which would always be safe from ice, but when I proposed that 
in the committee I think there were half a dozen of the delegates on 
their feet at once — and I think our committee was composed of 21 
members — I think there were a dozen on their feet at once, and one 
of the number was Capt. Charles, of the Lusitania, and he said he 
would like to ask Capt. Cooper who would be the first people to 
object in that case. 1 said: ^^I am frank to say that the American 
passenger would be the first to object, because of the heat in the 
summer time, if the trans-Atlantic lines were taken far south in order 
to be clear of the possibility of ice, as the passengers would get too 
hot.'' He said that would almost destroy the hedth of his memen, 
as they had to work in the fireroom; where they suffered from 
the great effect of the heat, and it would be well to state here that 
Capt. Bertholf and I went on record as saying that we thoroiighly 
beueved in the Government prescribing the lanes, and prescribing 
one far enough south for the clearance of all ice, but we did not 
for a moment that that was important enough to destroy the whole 
convention. 

Senator Hitchcock. It would lengthen the trip a good deal. 

Capt. Cooper. Not a good deal, but some, and, oi course, in the 
course of the year coal bills would amount to a great deal. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 189 

Article 14 deals with certain points in the regulations for the pre- 
en tion of collisions at sea, wnich were called the ''Rules of the 
^oad at Sea.'' That was the article, perhaps, on which we had our 
ardest fight. We endeavored to get the present article 10 of the 
mvention prescribed in the Rules of the Road, feeling that it would 
%ve more lorce at that time. We thought that way about it, and 
e fought bitterly for that, and we finally felt that it was our duty 
) compel a vote upon it. 

Senator Sutherland. What do you mean by ' ' the present article 
)''? 

Capt. Cooper. I mean on page 10 of the convention. 

Senator Sutherland. You are calUng attention to article 14 ? 

Capt. Cooper. Now, yes, sir; but you will find that article 14 
3als with the different subjects in the general subject of what we call 
The Rules of the Road at Sea.'' 

Senator Sutherland. Yes. 

Capt. Cooper. Which is a system of rules which has been made by 
Ltemational agreement for vessels' Ughts, etc. 

Senator Sutherland. I did not understand your reference to 
rticle 10. 

Capt. Cooper. I said that we, Capt. BerthoLf and I, in our argu- 
lent, desired that article 10, instead of being an article of the con- 
ention, should be an article of the Rules of the Road, and we had 

very bitter fight over that, and we were hoi)elessly beaten on it, 
nd when it came to a vote, it was 10 to 2 against us. We did not 
ealize at the time we were beaten on it that it was going into the con- 
ention. We were afraid that we had lost it entirely. 

Senator Smiih of Michigan. I think it is important to have it. 

Capt. Cooper. It is, as I frankly told the committee, after we 
ought very bitterly, but did not realize it was going into the conven- 
ion at the time ; we were very glad to take the decision of the com- 
nittee, but we did not understand at the time that it was going to 
)e put in the articles of the convention; but it is just as bindmg now 
IS m the Rules of the Road, and we are perfectly satisfied with that. 
[t is the most important article in the Safety of Navigation Rules. 

Senator Sutherland. I do not understand. I inferred from what 
70U said that it would be more important if put under article 14. 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir; that is where we thought it belonged; but 
we were afraid if we did not get there it would not get in at all. But 
the reason that article 14 reads as it does is because most of the dele- 
gates there felt that the international rules of the road, being what is 
practically a convention of 26 nations — that is, it was signed by 26 
powers. A great many of them believed that the fourteen powers who 
were present at this conferenc3 did not have the authonty, at least 
it would be discourteous to amend these rules of the road without 
first getting the others to sign, and that was the reason the amend- 
ments were finally put in the rules of the road in the article as it reads. 
The British Government was anxious to get these rules of the road in 
as quickly as possible, and they intimated to us when we were over 
there that it would not take longer than a year. 

Article 15 originally did not come under the safety of navigation 
but came under, I think, the lifeboats; but it was put in by the con- 
ference because it perhaps belonged there. 



190 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Senator Burton. Just what is the scope of that article 14 ? What 
does it mean ? 

Capt. Cooper. Article 14 provides: 

The high contracting parties undertake to use all diligence to obtain from the Gov- ~ 
^rnments which are not parties to this convention their agreement to the revision of 
the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea as indicated below. 

(fl) The regulations shall be completed or revised in regard to the following 
points 

Senator Burton. Article 15, I mean, which provides: 

The Governments of the high contracting parties undertake to maintain or, if it is 
necessary, to adopt measures for the purpose of insuring that, from the point of view of 
safety of life at sea, the vessels defined in article 2 shall be sufficiently and efficiently 
manned. 

Capt. Cooper. Simply that they shall carry enough officers and 
men to efficiently navigate the ship; they shall have enough officers 
on deck to stand the proper watches, and enough lookout men to 
stand the proper lookouts, and enough seamen on deck to properly 
handle the vessel. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Whether it is efficiently manned or 
not can not be ascertained with definiteness until they encounter 
some difficulty. 
V Senator McCumber. That means to encounter some difficulties. 

Capt. Cooper. Of course, it is left to the governments. The gov- 
ernments can prescribe the minimum number of men to be carriea on 
the deck, if necessary, and the minimum number of officers. That is 
imdoubtedly what that regulation means. 

Senator McCumber. Efficient men must necessarily mean men 
efficient to meet emergencies. 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir; certainly. And it is left in the hands of . 
each government to prescribe, if they feel it is necessary, the number 
of the crew- of each vessel. 

That is all that I have to say concerning the safety of navigation, 
imless there are some questions to be asked of me. There are one or 
two other points wMch Judge Alexander has asked me to speak of. - 

Senator Smith of Michigan. I was impressed with this rule. I : 
see they evidently discarded the idea that the lookout should be : 
provided with glasses ? . 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir; that was almost unanimous. 

Senator Burton. There is a recommendation about that, you will , 
find, Senator Smith, over among the recommendations that are.given 
at the end of the treaty, at page 68 : 

The conference makes the following recommendations 

That is on page 67. Then imder that there is 1, 2, 3, 4 and No. 7 
states: ^'Binoculars should not be provided for lookout men." 

Senator Sutherland. Wliy is that ? I have read some statement 
made about it, but I have really forgotten what it was. 

Capt. Cooper. Some people think they would do more harm than 
good. On some nights people with glasses imagine they see things 
that they do not, sometimes. 

Senator Smith of Mi- higan. Of course the lookout on the Titanic 
testified that if he had had glasses he would have been able to have 
avoided that berg; on the other hand, he had perfect vision. We 
had him examined tlio very first day, and found his vision was 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 191 

absolutely perfect. However, I do not want to introduce that. 
That is a matter of judgment. 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir; it is a matter largely of judgment and 
opinion. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. It is the same thing with searchlights ? 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir; and the suggestion was made that ships 
be equipped with searchlights, but unauestionably there can be no 
doubt tnat in some cases searchlights cio harm, and people have to 
be in certain positions with regard to the beam of the searchlight 
before they can do any good. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Most naval vessels have them? 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Of both England and America ? 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir; I think all men-of-war of the United 
States probably are equipped with searchUghts, and it is my per- 
sonal opinion tnat they do more good than harm, and perhaps I am 
not alone in that opinion, but there are many who have dififerent 
opinions. 

The Aotinq Chairman. The difference of opinion is that some- 
body will seem to see things that he does not see ? 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir; that is true sometimes. 

Senator McCumber. Well, the things that he does not see cer- 
tainly would not hurt him. 

j Capt. Cooper. Well, no; perhaps that is true. 
i Senator HrroHOOOK. I was going to ask what harm it would do. 
{Suppose he should think he detected something as a result of the 
binoculars ? 

Cant. Cooper. Well, he might, perhaps, make a report which 
vould cause a bit of uneasiness for a while. Perhaps that is the 
only harm it would do. However, of course, it is a convenience. 

Senator Hitohcock. Is there only one lookout ? 

Capt. Cooper. With us there are, on the men-of-war, always at 
least three on deck. I do not know how it is on merchant steamers. 
I imagine there is only one usually. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. There are two on the larger vessels. 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir; perhaps at night I guess there are two. 
With us there are always three. 

Senator Hitchcock. I would like to ask you something about 
article 10 that you referred to. What is meant by the use of the 
term ''moderate speed'' ? 

Capt. Cooper. That is left entirely to the judgment of the cap- 
tain. I am one of those — and I am probably m a very small minor- 
ity — who believe it proper to define the term '' moderate speed," and 
as I said before, I believe I am one of a very small minority. The same 
thing occurred in that convention. I got up and said, ^'We should 
define ' moderate speed on the water, ' and immediately there were 
a dozen on their feet, one of whom was a man who had spent many 
years at sea, and he is now an elder brother in Trinity House. 
This Capt. Blake, who was one of the delegates from Great Britaui, 
who has spent many years at sea in command of a ship, was on his 
feet at once, and said: ^'If we begin to define 'moderate speed' we 
will be liere until next Christmas, and there will be just as many 
different opinions about mod<Tate speed as there are delegates to this 
convention." 



192 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Senator Hitchcock. Is that really one of the objections, that it is 
really no guide at all ? If you said that automobiles should go at a 
moderate speed up Pennsylvania Avenue some of them would be 
going at 40 miles an hour. 

Capt. Cooper. The reason is that ''moderate speed" for one ship- 
is not moderate speed for another. 

Senator Burton. It is all dependent upon the conditions of the 
weather, for instance in fog. Moderate speed in that kind of weather 
would bo much lower than in others. 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir. One of the suggestions made to me wheit 
I was at the convention was that moderate speed should be defined, 
as speed at which the ship should go dependmg upon the visibility" 
of the horizon. My own idea was that it should be defined as speecl 
which would enable her to stop within a certain length — a certaim 
number of feet. 

Senator Sutherland. It is like the expression we use in railroad- 
ing sometimes — running at a great ana dangerous rate of speed « 
What is a great and dangerous speed under some circumstances would 
be a very moderate speed under other circumstances. 

Capt. Cooper. Yes; of course, a moderate speed for the Lusitanick 
would not be a moderate speed for a freight steamer. 

Senator McCumber. And moderate speed in entering port would 
not apply to moderate speed in midocean. 

Capt. Cooper. No, sir; the rules of the road now prescribe that 
a vessel in fog shall proceed at a moderate speed, and it has been 
discussed many, many times, but it is most usually side-stepped for 
that reason, that there are so many opinions about it. 

Senator Hitchcock. Suppose the Titanic was going at 25 miles . 
an hour; would that have been considered moderate speed for herf 

Capt. Cooper. No, sir; I should not have so considered it. 

Senator Hitchcock. What would have been ? 

Capt. Cooper. Her maximum speed was about 22 knots. I under- 
stand that was about it. . ' 

Admiral Capps. Twenty-four and two-tenths. 

Capt. Cooper. Twenty-four and two-tenths miles, approximately, - 
and moderate speed for her ought to have been, I should say, about '- 
12 to 14 knots. 

Senator Smith, of Michigan. That was not her maximum capacity, - 
She was running on about four-tenths of her capacity. I think her 
full capacity was about 26. 

Capt. Cooper. I have really forgotten myself. 

Adiniral Capps. In the neighborhood of 23 knots. 

Senator McCumber. That would be about 26 miles. 

Admiral Capps. I thought you were speaking of the Titanic. 

Senator Hitchcock. Yes; I was. 

Admiral Capps. Twenty-three was about the maximum. 

Senator Hitchcock. Do the rules require a vessel to go at moderate 
speed under those circumstances? , 

Capt. Cooper. No, sir; but they do in foggy weather, and that is 
why we were so anxious to get it in. 

Mr. Alexander. Capt. Cooper, suppose you speak in reference to 
lifeboats and manning. 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir; of course, the question of manning life- 
boats is one that involves the lowering, naturally, and also maiming 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 193 

Kow, unquestionably, in order to man a lifeboat properly, you have 
got to have men in them who know how to handle these boats. You 
have also got to have men to lower them who know how to lower 
tbem. It does not matter, it seems to me, whether the man in the 
lifeboat is called a seaman or any other name, so long as he knows 
how to handle the boat, and if he does know how to handle the 
boat, that is all that is necessary, and this convention has pro- 
Tided for that to my mind. In fact, he is being certiiicated by his 
Government that he. does know how to handle the boat and he 
ean not get a certificate or ought not to get a certificate — and we 
have got to give good faith to the rules and the laws as passed 
by the Governments — he can not get a certificate unless he does 
mow how to handle a boat, and because a man is a seaman, or be- 
cause he is called a seaman does not mean that he knows how to 
handle a lifeboat. I have seen many seamen in my life that I would 
not put in a lifeboat — men who are called seamen. In the Navy we 
train our own men. They are enlisted as apprentice seamen, and 
are called apprentice seamen. They are sent from the place of 
enlistment as soon as possible to the training station at Newport or 
the Great Lakes, Chicago, or Norfolk. They are kept there for a 
J period of four months and they are then sent on board ship and 
rated at once as ordinary seamen by regulation. 

The captain, imtil within three months, when General Order No. 63 
was issued, had authority to rate any one of those men as seamen at 
any time he saw fit, depending, of course, upon his abilities. Some 
men develop the qualification of leadership and the qualities of 
knowledge much sooner than other men, but it is a fact that until 
the 1st of January, 1914, the captain had authority under his own 
will to rate any one of those men a seaman at any time after they 
came on board ship. In order to be sure of my facts, I telephoned 
yesterday to an officer of the Bureau of Navigation who has that in 
charge and asked him if now there was any time limit about rating 
the seamen, and he assm-ed me there was none. But under General 
Order No. 63, which was issued by the present Secretary of the Navy, 
prescribing certain educational facilities on board ship for enlisted 
men, it is in that order prescribed that before those men are rated 
seamen they shall be examined by a board of officers. But, of course, 
they naay be examined by that board of officers at any time during 
their enlistment, and if they pass the necessary examination they 
are at once rated seamen, and the probabiUty is, of course, that they 
have knowledge of it. But many of the other men who are only 
ordinary seamen and many of the apprentice seamen have a very 
excellent knowledge of boats. That is one of the first things that 
is taught them at the training stations; not always, of course, in 
heavy weather, because you can not do it. 
Senator Hitchcock. You are now speaking of the Navy ? 
Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir- but it does not matter, from my point of 
view, what he is being called, so long as we can be sure that he knows 
what he is put there for, if he is given a certificate by his Grovem- 
ment. If the Government looks after that certificate properly, as it 
should do, and as it must do, it does not make any difference what 
you call him. 

Senator HrrcHCOCK. Do I imderstand there is to be a naval test 
for the merchant marine ? 

38444-J4 13 



194 SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 






Capt. Cooper. No, sir; I merely used what I have said as an illus 
tration that the board of inspection officials — and Gen. Uhler will M| 
the officer, I suppose, who will decide it, and I am quite sure thi : 
General is capable — would not want to let any man through asl- 
lifeboatman who has not proved that he knows his business. Heh# 
got to prove it. He can not prove it by having been a seaman fn 
three years on the deck of a ship. ^ 

Senator Hitchcock. These certificates are to be issued only bf 
the Government ? 

Capt. Cooper. Only by the Government. It is said it might W 
delegated to the master. If so, then, certainly the master would W 
very vastly interested in seeing that the proper men got them. Nw 
body would be more interested than they. If the Government chooseii 
to delegate the issuance of those certificates to the masters, thti 
Government would still be responsible, and certainly the master wodt 
take particular care, I should think, to see that no improper man golT 
the certificate. 

Senator Hitchcock. Heretofore the masters have been selecting: 
the men. For instance, on the Voltumo they evidently had incoiff-^ 
petent men selected by the masters to man the lifeboats. 

Capt. Cooper. But that was only used as an illustration yesterday^ 
I am saying that the masters ought not to do it. I think the Gov- 
ernment inspectors ought to do it. But it was stated yesterday thai 
it might be delegated to the master, and it seems to me if it is dele- 
gated to the master he certainly ought to be particularly careful thfid 
improper men did not get the certificates. 

Senator Hitchcock. Is there not danger, if it is left to the mastrf,- 
that the rush incident to making up his crew, getting stewardej, 
stokers, and others, that he will give a certificate to a man rathef 
presuming that he wiU get along somehow without giving him a 
careful inspection ? 

Capt. Cooper. I think if he did he would neglect his duty. 

Senator Hitchcock. But is not that a real danger if it is left to 
the master of the vessel ? 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Are those certificates to be recog- 
nized by the parties to this convention in conference with each other f 

Capt. Cooper. Well, I take it for granted, yes, sir, through the 
safety certificate. Of course the safety certificate, as I understand, 
provides they shall have so many certificated hfeboatmen. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. What is there to guard against trans- 
ferring those certificates from persons to whom they were originallj' 
issued to some one else living iji a foreign State; how are we to 
identify those people? 

Capt. Cooper. Well, I do not know. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Is there any provision for that? 

Capt. Cooper. There is nothing specifically provided, but I do 
not Know that it would be possiole to do that imless attention is 
drawn to it. Of course if anybody should have a suspicion, under 
the regulations, and makes it known they have a perfect right to go 
on board and find out about it. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. But the public is vitally concerned 
in the question of the efficiency of the sailor, and the certificate is 
the only evidence we have of his efficiency. Now if it is to be ac- 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 195 

cepted as current by all the countries parties to the convention it 
looks to me as if there ought to be some way of identification. 

Senator Burton. But it does not mean that the certificates 
Should necessarily be accepted by other coimtries, does it? For 
instance, if a man has a certificate as engineer from the Govem- 
ttient of the Netherlands that does not entitle him to go on board a 
jhip of Great Britain or the United States as an engineer? 

Capt. Cooper. Article 65; which Admiral Capps has just called 
ny attention to, prescribes for that, I think, in the following language : 

The high contracting parties undertake to take, or to propose to their respective 
egislatnres, the measures necessary for the repression of infractions of the require- 
Qents imposed by this convention. 

That, it seems, ought to cover it. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. I understand that, but if you are 
p)ing to accept regulations in good f a th that the certificate of one 
)arty to the convention will be current with the other as to service, 
ihey all require the same standards, do they not ? 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir. 

Senator Burton. Do I understand, Mr. Alexander, that to be the 
jase, that a certificate by one nation entitles the person to be accepted 
>y another nation ? 

Capt. Cooper. No; I do not understand Senator Smith to mean 
bhat. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. I did not say that. If it is prima 
facie evidence of service at sea, and if it is in the hands of the person 
to whom it is ori^nally issued, and is based on actual service, no 
difficulty would arise, but if it is to be passed about indiscriminately 
from one to another it would be a very serious matter. Can not the 
Governments take steps to prevent that ? 

Capt. Cooper. Our own Government might take steps to pre- 
vent it. 

The Acting Chairman. We might have the photograph of the 
sailor on the certificate. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. The convention says this must be 
enforced by proper legislation. 

Capt. Cooper. The same argument, it seems to me, might apply 
to the discharge of men in the merchant service or in the Navy. 
We might enhst a man on a discharge that did not belong to him. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. When he is out of the service, you 
have notice — when a man holds a discharge that shows he is out. 
When a man holds a certificate, that is notice that he is somewhere 
in good standing. 

Senator Hitchcock. Article 59 states: '^The safety certificate 
shall not be issued for a period of more than 12 months.'^ Does that 
mean safety certificate to vessel ? 

Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir; to vessel. 

Senator Hitchcock. It does not mean a safety certificate of able 
seaman ? 

Capt. Cooper. No, sir; the term '^safety certificate'^ was used all 
through the convention as applying to an international safety certifi- 
cate for the vessel. 

Senator Sutherland. If you were selecting a man for lifeboat 
service, would you regard it as at all important to inquire whether 
he had actually had service on deck at sea ? 



196 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Capt. Cooper. No, sir; I would rather inquire if he had had serr 
vice m boats. 

Senator Sutherland. Suppose he had had service only in stiB 
water ? 

Capt. Cooper. I think I would rather put him in a boat than one 
who had been on deck of a ship and had never been in a boat. 

Senator Sutherland. Is it likely that a man who has seen threa 
years' service on deck has never been in a boat? 

Capt. Cooper. It might be very possible that he had never seeDfc 
service in rough water, because people do not lower boats in rough! 
water unless they are obliged to. 

Senator McCumber. Right there, I would Uke to get a Uttle mora 
information if I can as to the method of determining the efficienc]F 
of these men. We can hardly teU what a soldier would do in actual 
battle unless he has been in actual battle, and I would hardly knoiB 
how to determine how a man would act in distress and shipwrecfei 
and storms unless he has had some experience in similar conditionc 
of bad weather and stress. How would you arrive at the matter od 
efficiency of a man in those cases of great danger, unless he had hac 
considerable time and experience in mid-ocean. 

Capt. Cooper. If I were conducting an examination I would asl 
him what experience he had, and also ask him the question what h-< 
would do under certain circumstances. Mind you, this conventioi 
and that definition of lifeboat men does not at aU preclude the possi- 
bility that a seaman will get it. It is a certificate for the lifeboat 
men and if they are proper seamen they will get it and be the first men 
to get it, if they are real seamen, and there is no reason in the world 
why they should not get it. 

Senator Sutherland. Would it not be better to prescribe as ona 
of the conditions that they shall be seamen and then superadd to that 
the requirement that they shall have had experience in the handlinif 
of boats ? 

Capt. Cooper. No, sir; I do not think so. 

Senator Sutherland. Rather than to simply prescribe that they 
shall have experience in handling boats but nothing else ? 

Capt. Cooper. I do not think it would be better. 
J Senator McCumber. You do not think the name would add any- 
thing to it ? 

Capt. Cooper. No, sir. 

Senator Sutherland. I do not mean the mere name but would it 
not be better to prescribe first of all that a man shall have had two 
or three years' service on deck, and in addition to that that he shall 
have had experience in handling boats ? 

Capt. Cooper. No, sir; I do not think that, even. 

Senator Sutherland. Rather than only requiring that he should 
have experience in handling boats ? 

Capt. Cooper. No, sir. Take our own men at Hampton Roads, 
for instance. The man might never have been outside, but if he has 
handled a boat 'n Hampton Roads for six months, he certainly ought 
to know something about getting a boat away from a ship. 

Senator Sutherland. He certainly would not know less if he had 
. been on the deck, would he ? 

Capt. Cooper. Probably not, if he had handled a boat also. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 197 

Senator Sutherland. I ask you whether it would not be better to 
have both requirements — handling the boat and to have seen service 
on deck? Service on deck certainly gives him the opportunity of 
handling ropes and tackle and things of that sort. 

Capt. Cooper. Undoubtedly; but he may not have to handle and 
lower boats on the modern-equipped steamers. Yesterday, when 
that matter was up, I was interested in it. I thought I had read 
somewhere that the Imperator had mechanical equipment, and I took 
lateps this morning to telegraph to the officer in charge of my branch 
office in New York to find out. At 1 o'clock I received this telegram: 

Boats of Imperator are lowered bow and stern at same time by mechanical means; 
,iire falls and electric winches. 

Those are boats that are stowed under the davits at the davit heads. 
There are other boats and rafts which are not stowed on the davits, 
tot are stowed athwartships. Those boats are lowered by booms and 
dectric winches — the booms meaning, of course, booms that are 
lunged, or goosenecked, as we call it, to the mast or some other sup- 
port, and they lower the boat by a span — that is ordinarily the case, 
Hid I suppose it is so on the Imperator — a span meaning a piece of 
wire which comes over from each end of tne boat caught in the 
middle, and the hook and tackle from the boom is hooked into that. 
Senator McCumber. And when you have a wreck and your dynamo 
is out of order, how about your electric apparatus then ? 

Capt. Cooper. Of course, they would have to lower it by hand. 
But it is the duty of the electricians to see that the electrical gear 
js not get out of order. Even in the Navy we have on some — ^1 do 
iot know; perhaps Admiral Capps can tell me whether the hand gear 
isst'Jl fitted to the turrets? It used to be. 
Admiral Capps. Yes; we still have the hand gear. 
Capt. Cooper. But I have never known it to be used except to 
feep it in order. 

I Senator Sutherland. Those appliances do not do away with the 
Necessity for having skilled men? 
' Capt. Cooper. No, sir; not at all. 
Senator Sutherland. Even for lowering boats ? 
Capt. Cooper. The probability is in lowering those boats — that is 
80 in the Navy, and I take it for granted also on the Imperator — they 
Would use an electrician. 

Senator Sutherland. That would be all right in a quiet sea, but 
how about a heav> sea ? . 

Capt. Cooper. In a stormy sea, with us — and I ima^ne thej are 
also on every merchant ship where ^here is proper discipUne and 
management — the boats are lowered under the supervision of an 
officer or ver> high petty officer, and the electrician at the winch does 
not move that winch until he is told. 
Senator Sutherland. It requires skilled oversight. 
Capt. Cooper. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Alexander. If there are no further questions to be asked Capt. 
Cooper I would like to have Capt. Bertholf to address the committee, 
(Capt. (^ooper was thereupon excused.) 






198 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

STATEMENT OF CAPT. ELLSWORTH P. BEBTHOLF, GAPTAIV 
COMMANDANT, BEVENTJE-CX7TTEB SEBVIGE. 

Capt. Bertholf. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, when this matter 
about manning the boats came up the American delegation among 
its own members agreed that they should stipulate a year's experience 
on the sea and on the Lakes, but when that came to be discussed in 
the committee on Ufeboats it was stricken out, for this reason, 
that if the Government gave a certificate and assumed full responsi- 
bility for the certificate which stated that the man was an emcient 
boat hand and was competent, there was nothing to be added to that. 
It was brought out that service did not bring competencv; experienced 
alone brought competency if there was sufficient brains behind it, but 
the fact that a man has been on the deck of a ship, or in the fireroom of 
a ship, or anywhere else on a ship, for a number of years does not make 
him qualified to handle a boat. 

It was thought that we should first trv to build a ship that was safp, 
recognizing that the ship is the best lifeboat of aU. After you hav^ 
built a ship as safely as possible it must be navigated properly; theri^ 
is no occasion for any worry except for those disasters that we cam 
not forecast, and then we must look out for saving the people. Wia 
did not consider that vessels were being run for the purpose of having 
disasters and that one should be supphed with extra men for par>^ 
ticular disasters, but we thought we ought to have on board ship & 
sufficient number of men, the best we could get, qualified to sav^ 
people in the boats if disaster should overtake the snip. 

Now, if you say that a man must be an able seaman before he can 
be an efficient boat hand, that raises the question as to what is an abb 
seaman. The question was asked this morning. What is a seaman } = 
An able seaman is usually a man who has discharges from three jwr- 
four merchant vessels, but as to his eflGlciency the captain who shipft'^ 
him does not know. He presumes he is and he finds out later. Capt. ^ 
Wescott testified that half the men aboard his ship had not lowe^^. ! 
a boat at sea and he did not know whether theywere boat hands or ^ 
not. Certainly he did not. Neither do we. We ship nien in our ^ 
service who have to do a great deal of boat work ordmarily at sea, ^ 
but we do not know when we enlist men whether they are boat haiuJis i 
in a sea way or not, because people do not get practical experience 
in a sea way except in an emergency service Uke ours, or in case of i 
disaster. So we can not require that a man to be an efficient boat; 
hand should have had actual practice in rough seas, because sailors 
do not get that practice. 

It was asked in the convention, or in the meetings, whether or no^i 
in giving a certificate by the Government the (Government coul^J 
delegate its authority? Certainly it can, and it does. The Gover^br; 
ment has to delegate it to some one, and if the Government deleg^ktes , 
it to the master of a ship — which I do not believe in at all^ — neverthe- 
less the Government is still responsible. But the Govermnent imder- 
takes to say in those certificates that, ^'Here is a man who is a compe- 
tent boat hand.'' Now, how the Government ascertains that he is a 
competent boat hand does not concern any of us except how our Gov- 
ernment ascertains that fact. The fact that a man is a competent boat 
hand under a certificate of the English Government woidd not 
necessanly give him a position on our own vessels, but as I under* 



i 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 199 

stand the convention, when a vessel comes into New York Harbor 
a safety certificate calls for so many eflScient boat hands on that ship, 
and every boat hand must produce a certificate from the English 
Government that he is a ^'competent " man, and he must be identified, 
usually as a matter of administration, just the same as a certificated 
: engineer. 
[ Senator McCumbeb. That is merely prima facie evidence that he is ? ^ 

Capt. Bbbtholf. That is merely prima facie evidence that he is. 
He may not be a competent boat hand. Neither may a master of a 
ship, with a steamboat iiispection certificate, be a competent master. 
So^ie are better than others, but it is supposed he is or he would not 
gBt the certificate. 

Senator Hitchcock. It will require new legislation in this coimtry 
iojprovide for the issuance of certificates ? 

Capt. Bebtholf. Most assuredly, because this convention under- 
tcxJi only to lay down principles. 

Now, about the certificates of these boatmen, the best lifeboat man 
ia the world is not of any use ordinarily on ship untU he has been 

Sined in teamwork. It is teamwork that gets the boat away 
m the ship. I have seen many boats lowered in very rough 
feather, and they were always under the supervision of an officer. 
They did not leave it to the best man on the ship to lower that boat; 
3mI blows how to lower it, we hope, because he has been taught, but 
ibat officer tells him when to lower and how to lower that boat. 
Senator Hitchcock. In case of disaster, would there be enough 
officers for that purpose % 
Capt. Bebthoj-f. No, sir. 

Senator EbxcHCOCK. It has got to be left to the men then ? 
Oapt. Bebtholf. Most certainly, but after they have had a lot of 
]iractice it is presumed they know something about it. I do not 
Qpderstand that there can l>e a provision made on a ship so that in 
eftse of disaster, in a rough or moderate sea, boats could be lowered 
with precision, and those boats lowered without any peradventure 
dl doubt. Accidents will happen. The best we can do is to provide 
the very best means against those disasters and hope nobody will get 
excited, because even the best men in the world get excited, and 
you do not know what is going to happen then. As Mr, Furuseth 
said yesterday, I think that when the first I^oZ^t^rno's boat was lowered 
it was lowered by the captain and mate, and that boat upset. 

Senator Hitchcock. That was on account of a defective tackle, was 
it not? 

Capt. Bebtholf. Any excuse does for upsetting a boat. Tackle s are 
always doiQg something of that sort. You never can guarantee what 
atackle will do. The best man in the world can not guarantee against 
an accident. The next boat was upset — I do not know about the 
tackle, and it is not really interestmg why the second boat upset. 
Tiie fact remains that they both upset. 'VMiat diiferencc does it 
make whose fault it is. We can not guarantee against fault. Take 
our lif ensaving service, for instance. Those boats are manned by life- 
boat men who have spent their lives going through heavy water, such 
water as you do not see at sea, but those men would not do on a ship 
without training in teamwork. You take those smfmen who have 
ll^ver been to sea in their lives and put them on a ship arid put them 
dirough drills and they are better than all the able seamen you can 



200 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

find, because they understand the sea and the water. But they hare 
never been to sea. 

When the question of requiring experience as a guaranty, or rather ;; 
sea service as a guaranty, of efficiency came up in the conunittee 
meeting in London, Sir Norman Hill said, '^Wnat about the Deal 
boatmen, the best boatmen in the world, who have never been 
on the deck of a ship ? Shall we exclude them ? " Take the fishermen 
on the New England coast. They never lower a boat from a davit; 
their boats are nested. They are the best, boatmen in the world. 
Those men could not qualify under the able-seaman clause. And 
we thought that we should provide against disasters — which we^ 
hope will never occur — by simplyprovidmg efficient men, and we do 
not know any better men than efficient boatmen — that is what they 
are. They are supposed to handle those boats. 

Senator Hitchcock. Do you think it is possible for masters to 
employ men ordinarily as stewards where they have this efficiency, 
in case of emergency ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Yes, indeed. For instance, when the Republic 
sank off the New England coast the captain of the Baltic, I thmk i^t 
was, told us that nearlv all the work oi transferring those people io 
that rough water was dfone by the stewards in the boats. It is drill 
that is necessary more than anything else, because you can teach men 
to lower boats very easilv. A man does not have to go to sea for a 
number of years to unaerstand how to lower a boat. He has to 
know the work and then work in conjunction with another man. 
That is the truth of the matter. You can not drill a ship at sea, 
and you can not drill a ship under conditions of disaster. 

Some one said a while ago — I think it was you, Senator Hitchcock— 
that you could not guarantee how a soldier would act, or that he 
would act properly in the face of danger. We do the best we can to 
train him in peace times in those operations that he will have to do in 
dangerous times. A man who raises and lowers a boat and gets it 
awaj^ from the ship, and knows how to maneuver that boat in rough 
or still water is much better than a man who has been to sea for 15 
years and has never been in a boat. 

Senator Hitchcock. Did I understand you to say that masters 
will be able to engage 150 stewards and that of those they may require 
60 of them to be capable of manning a boat and going through a drill, 
and that those 60 men would be paid no more than the others % 

Capt. Bertholf. I do not know about pay. A man who has a 
certificate is certainly worth more than a man who has not. 

Senator HrrcHCOCK. What do you think of the stewards' pay? Is 
it possible to procure those men as efficient boatmen? 

Capt. Bertholf. Yes, sir; there are plenty of the boys in my service 
who get $15 a month and who are good boatmen. 

Senator Hitchcock. If that is the case why has it not been so in 
the past; why have not masters been able to prociu'e men as stewards 
who are capable of manning the boats ? 

Capt. Bertholf. I do not know. There are stewards on boats that 
I have been on and the captain told nie those men had been with the 
company for years and drilled in the boats for years and were just 
as good as any other men. 

You asked a question this morning, Senator, why are the able 
sf^amon thrown out — that was not the expression but that was the 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 201 

idea — ^in this convention. They were not discarded at all. Capt. 
Cooper very well expressed it by saying that if an able seaman can 
handle a boat he should get a certificate, and they would be the very 
first ones because it is tneir particular job to be near these boats at 
:all times. That is their firat duty. They ought to know about 
I handling a boat. 

Senator Hitohcock. Do you think it is quite possible that a man 
Hiight come up to the standard of able seaman and still not be an 
efficient boatman? 

Capt. Beetholf. Most assuredly. 

Senator HrrcHcooK. That was really the question 1 asked. 

Senator McCumber. Will you explain that ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Because ne probably has not been in a boat very 
often. A man can not be a good boatman unless he has been in a 
boat. 

Senator Sutherland. Would not that bo a very rare thing ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Not at all. It is a sailor's business to keep out 
of boats except when in harbor. Sailors do not take to the boats 
until they are in a disaster, and they hope not to be. 

Senator Sutherland. Would there be any difficulty in training 
those seamen? 

Capt. Bertholf. Not at all. 

Senator Sutherland. Would they not ordinarily train easier than 
a steward ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Yes, sir. 

Senator Sutherland. Being out on the deck and exposed to hard, 
rough weather and familiar with the sea and all its moods ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Yes, sir; the man who is familiar with the sea 
and knows all about saUorizing, as we call it, would be a better man 
than a man who has not been to sea; but you have to train him to be a 
boatman. He is not a boatman because he has done those things. 

Senator Sutherland. I do not know whether you heard the state- 
ment I made to Judge Alexander about an examination of the rolls of 
some of those ships on the Pacific. I called his attention to one 
instance where there were 12 lifeboats and 11 seamen 

Capt. Bertholf. Yes, sir. 

Senator Sutherland. And I found that in distributing those men 
among the lifeboats they had been careful to select one seaman to each 
lifeboat, just as far as they would extend, but they have exerted no 
care whatever in selecting the other men. 

Capt. Bertholf. As to that, I can not say, of course. 

Senator Sutherland. Two stewards in one boat and no steward in 
another. How do you account for that being done ? 

Capt. Bertholf. It is the duty of the man on the deck to attend to 
the boats; and since it is his particular province to look out for the 
boats, why should he not go into the boats ? 

Senator Sutherland. It indicated that in the opinions of all who 
were in control of that matter on that ship that the seaman was a bet- 
ter qualified man to go in the boat than any other class of men they 
had on the ship ? 

Capt. Bertholf. That mav be so, but they put those seamen in the 
boat as far as they went. Then they took the men and distributed 
them, in the way I make up the muster roll, according to the quali- 
fication of the men. 



202 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Senator Sutherland. If they had 12 seamen on the ship they 
would have put one seaman in each boat. 

Capt. Bertholf. Very likely. I see no reason why they should 
not. 

Senator Sutherland. And if they had had 24 they would have p\it 
in 24. 

Capt. Bejitholf. Probably. Where else would tiiey put them t 

Senator Sutherland. It shows it was not a matter of indifference. 
If it had been they might have put two seamen in one l?oat and 1^ 
two other boats without boatmen at all. 

Capt. Bertholf. Presumably; those men are supposed to know 
something. 

Senator Sutherland. That is what I am trying to get at, whether 
or not, all other things being equal, they are not considered better men 
for lifeboat service ? 

Capt. Bertholf. That is a question that is very difficult to answer. 
I myself have called for volunteers on two or three occasions when the 
sea was bad enough so that the captain would not order a boat ou^ 
and then we did not send the men; we asked for volunteers. They 
came from the fireroom — perhaps the ship's cook, coal heaver, quar- 
termaster, or seaman, we do not care, and all our men are trained in 
those boats. Now the fact that you take the deck crew seems to me 
quite logical. If you are making a station bill or anything of that 
kind on the ship, you would not put the deck man in the ensme room,. 
because the engine room is where those men are employed, but you 
would in an emergency or fire first use the firemen because they are 
there, near. 

Senator Sutherland. And because they would be better, too. 

Capt. Bertholf. Not necessarily. 

Senator Sutherland. But ordinarily. 

Capt. Bertholf. Not at all. In stationing them for fire drill i3^& 
deck men take the deck hose, the firemen the fire-room hose. They 
aim to get men in case of emergency at the nearest point to which thj^ 
would ordinarily be when the emergency arises. When you give ai^ 
order to abandon ship, as it is callS, naturally you womd put yojur 
deck man in the boat — put as many deck men as you can m lie 
boat — and those men are held responsible for those boats and would 
see that they are properly cared for. The fact that a man is an able 
seaman does not disqualify him for a boat and there is no reason wixj* 
he should not be a good boatman if he has had training, and eada 
one of these Governments is required under this treaty to legislate 
to accomplish this purpose. Now, how can any Government certify 
through its ofiicers that a man is a competent boat hand unl^s it 
knows he is, or satisfies itself that he is ? I would say that a mjan 
could not be a competent boat hand if he had never been to sea. J 
do not care where he spends his Ufe. It might be in the fireroao;!, 
it might be in the steward's room or on deck. If he is not a boatman 
he would not get a certificate from me if I had anything to do with iU 

Senator McCumber. Let me ask you, so as to get that mattcjir 
clear in my mind. How often are these boat drills held when crossio^ 
the ocean ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Every week. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 203 

S^nf^tor McCuMBER. Does the captain select a particular day aiid, u- 
notwithstanding the weather, run his boats out that day, or doeis he 
hl^ye his practice in the smoothest kind of water ? 

Capt. Bebtb;olf. Indeed he does not, at sea. 

Sepato^ MoCuMBER. That is the point I want to get at. Does he ^' 
have a r^ular time without reference to the condition of the weather ? 

Cwt. Serthqlf. No; I presume he selects his time, having in 
mxMi the duties of the ship and the place where th^y are. I t£ink 
^u^y have these drills usually in a harbor, because I do not see any 
other place to have them. They lower the boats and the men row 

arouha. 

3enator MqCumber. But they drill in the harbor, at least in taking 
a boat away from the ship's side. But that would not be of very ^ 
est wch value jin a stormy sea, would it ? 

I Capt. Bb^tholf. It depends upon wh^t you mean by ^'v^lue.'^ 
er.llf, in order to get his boat away from the ship in rou^ weather, 
hsi %A men must be practiced in handling the boat in rough weather. 
>tii| ypu would not find enough men in the United States to man a half 
ie^l ^^zen of the big liners. 

Senator McCumber. Then this bill does not give them a sufficient 
unouiiLt of experience in rough seas ? 

Capt. Bertholf. No; nor any other drills that I ever heard of. 
I will say that the Kevenue-Cutter Service is the Government service 
which" lowers its boats in a rough seaway more than any other 
service in the course of its duties. We drill om- rnen in still w^ter^ 
and we would not think of drilling our men in a rough sea. 
Senator McCumber. Why not? ^ 

Capt. Bertholf. We would not want to risk the men's lives. 
If the boat capsizes, we would lose those men, and we would be 
severely censured for that. After a ship's crew is properly trailed 
^\ we have what we call the ^' man overboard '' drill, and then we drop the 
^^'1 boat over, if it is a moderate sea, but not in a bad sea. The 
^j Ogp^tions imder which a boat is lowered in a disaster at sea are those 
s^f conditions which a man has not met before unless he has had another 
disaster. 

Senator McCumber. Can you not see that it might be very easy l^ 
t^t ft man might be very proficient in smooth, still water in port, 
and yet be of no value whatever in a rough sea, a tempest, or any 
trouble when ships are liable to capsize ? 

Cikpt. Bertholf. No, I can not see that, for the reason that a man 
is as familiar with the tackle, with the boats, with the ship, and 
wij^ his shipmates, which is occasioned by drill team work. In other 
words, you know how much better those men can do than men 
who have not been drilled on their ship, who have not been worked 
together in any kind of weather. You might get in a ship's company 
perhaps, we will say, four or five men in a boat, who have all lowered 
Doats on some other ships, it may be, but they have never done tljL^ 
work together. 

Senator Sutherland. Captain, if in addition to all that a man is 
also a seaman, who has had actual deck experience for three years, 
is he not a better man ? 
Capt. Bertholf. Of course he is. 



ar 
. in 
nw 

hat 
Dm 



y 



204 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Senator Sutherland. That would best contribute to the safety of ] 
passengers in case of disaster ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Of course the more experience a man has had on 
a ship the better man he is; but the experience he has had on 
the ship, unless he has boat experience, would not give him what 
we are after. 

Senator Sutherland. What I am trying to ascertain is whether or 
not there could possibly be any objection to requiring that a man shall 
be a seaman and should have had actual experience of two or three 
years on deck at sea. 

Capt. Bertholf. Then if you require that a man must first be a 
seaman — whatever that means I do not know — but if you first require 
he must be a seaman, and then that he must be a boatman in addi- 
tion, you could not get boatmen except from the seamen unless the 
seamen shipped in the fire room. Many do. Many of the stewards 
are seamen or ex-seamen — sailors, I should say. Now, if you have 
40 boats on a ship — and this convention, I imderstand, calls for three 
efficient boat hands to every boat — that is 120 men. If you can only 
select those boat hands from those who have the title of seamen, you 
are very much limited. In the case of the Voltumo, as I understand 
it, fire oroke out and a certain portion of the deck force were burned. 
Under those conditions you have only half the seamen left from whom 
to draw your boatmen, if you have not provided boatmen in the other 
parts of the ship. 

Senator Sutherland. However, if I understand your position, it 
is not that the requirement that the men shall be seamen is not a 
valuable one, but that it is not feasible. 

Capt. Bertholf. Will you repeat that, please ? 

Senator Sutherland. Do you think that to require that the life- 
boat man shall be a seaman is not a valuable requirement ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Not exclusively so; it contributes to it, of course. 

Senator Sutherland. Then it would be a valuable thing ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Yes; to a certain extent, in so far as it would 
help nim to be a boatman. 

Senator Sutherland. But you think that the requirement is not 
a feasible one because it would be difficult to obtain such men ? 

Capt. Bertholf. You are speaking, I take it. Senator, that the men 
should be selected from the deck force ? 

Senator Sutherland. Yes. 

Capt. Bertholf. It would not be feasible; neither do I ^hink it 
would be just. 

Senator Sutherland. That is the objection, that it is not feasible^ 

Capt. Bertholf. It is neither feasible nor just, in my opinion. 

Senator Sutherland. What do you mean by not being just ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Because I do not think it is just to require a ship 
to have a lot of men on deck which they would not ordinarily need for 
navigation, but simpl}^ to stand by in case of disaster. 

Senator Sutherland. You do not think it is necessary? 

Capt. Bertholf. I do not think it is at all necessary; that is my 
opinion only. 

Senator McCumber. It is not necessary if they can get a sufficient 
number from the crew without it. 

Capt. Bertholf. Precisely. If they can get them otherwise, they 
should get them. 



' SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 205 

Senator Hitchcock. If these men are never trained in rough 
/eather to lower boats because of the danger, it rather impresses me 
bat it is going to add to the terrors of a shipwreck to think that the 
passengers have got to trust their lives to men who have not at- 
«np*.ed to lower Doats in rough weather. 

Capt. Bebtholf. They have been doing it for a great many 
^fcuries. 

Senator McCumber. Do you not think you could get enough men 
fho have been trained in rough seas And are expert enough to handle 
boat in rough seas ? 
Capt. Bebtholf. I do not think so. 

Senator McCumbeb. I can row a boat in a smooth, glassy lake very / 
cely, but God pity the passenger in rough and stormy weather. 
Capt. Bebtholf. If you have been accustomed to handling a boat 

smooth water, you would be very handy in rough weather, my 
:perience has taught me. 

Senator Hitchcock. Is it really dangerous to have these boat drills 
' sea? 

Capt. Bebtholf. If the sea is fairly rough, yes, indeed. Further- 
tcre, they have to stop the ship, and the passengers would all object, 
cu would not get any passengers. 

Senator Hitchcock. That is probably the real reason, because of 
:ie time it takes. 

Capt. Bebtholf. There would be plenty of time, if it was a quea- 
.on of time alone, to have drills at sea under circumstances wnich 
''ould not make it extremely dangerous. That could be done. 

Senator Hitchcock. What length of time would be required ? 

Capt. Bebthoijf. To lower all tne boats ? 

Senator Hitchcock. Yes. 

Capt. Bebtholf. It depends on the size of the boats. For in- - 
tance, the Lusitania 

Senator Hn'CHCOCK. One witness said we ought to be able to lower 
ill the boats at the same time. 

Capt. Bebtholf. That would be a very good thing. 

Senator Hitchcock. What length of time would you estimate 
lecessary on the average-sized passenger boat; say a boat of 15,000 
r 18,000 tons? 

Capt. Bebtholf. I do not know, but Gren. Uhler can teU you that, 
Bcause he has seen it done in port, and it could not be done in any 
ss time at sea. All I know about lowering boats at once is in my own 
irvice, in what we caU ^'abandoning ship.'' We aim, then, to get 
vay in a couple of minutes. 

Senator Hitchcock. Could the whole thing be done in a couple of 
3urs? 
Capt. Bebtholf. Yos; if there were not too many boats. 

Senator Hitchcock. That would be a loss of only 50 miles. 

Capt. Bebtholf. But there is this to think about: If you were to 
mduct your drills under that idea at sea, I do not beUeve any cap- 
dn would allow all his boats to be lowered at once. He would 
isist that all the boats be lowered imder the supervision of an oflScer 
ho was particularly experienced, because otherwise some boats 
light capsize and they would be severely blamed. I know a captain 
t sea would not do it, because he would not want to risk it. It 



206 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

might go uicelv; but sometimes the falls get twisted, even in smooth 
weather. 

Senator Hitchcock. You remind me, in your argument, of the 
teeHng some people have as to a fire escape. They would not go 
down it as an experimental matter, but they would in case of nec^- 
sity. 

Capt. Bertholf. There are lots of things we have to do when W6 
must. 

Senator Hitchcock. Was that discussed at* all — the matter ot 
having drills at sea ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Yes; that was discussed in the preliminary com- 
mittee meeting here. 

Senator Hitchcock. It was discarded because it was dangerous ? 

Capt. Bertholf. I do not believe it was entertained seriously. 

Senator Hitchcock. Were any reasons given why it was ob- 
jectionable? 

Capt. Bertholf. That I can not say, because I was not present 
during those meetings. General Uhler can tell you about that. Btit 
I know in reading the preUminary report of the lifeboat people in 
our committee beK)re we started — I will see if I get that right. Some 
of my fellow officers were on that committee, and they said they 
ought not to have the drills alongside of the dock. They said they 
ought to leave New York, having New York in mind, and go down to 
Sandy Hook and have the drills there. 

Senator McCumber. Is not that the real reason they do not have 

y them in mid-ocean, that it would delay the process of the shtpt 

Is not that at the bottom of the matter, so much tim6 being wasltedJ 

Capt. Bertholf. I would not be surprised. But supposing the 
law, or the companies' regulations, required a drill dut^ing your pas- 
sage, whether or no. The captain would then have to select his 
time. The first day it is rough, and the second day no t q uite so 
Tough. You can imagine that the captain would say, "Well, to- 
morrow it will be better.'' And the first thing you know they would 
be all the way across, and vet not have the drill because he would not 
'want to risk his men for the sake of the drill. You know we do not 
expect to lower the boats of a great liner at sea, ever. It is only 
because we are preparing for this in case we do have to lower them 
under adverse circumstances. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. I had understood that some of these 
companies did require that to be done. 

Capt. Bertholf. At sea ? 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Yes. 

Capt. Bertholf. I should disUke to be the master. 

Senator Burton. There are some that do require that — ^not all the 
boats, but one or two are lowered. I have seen that done a great 
number of times. 

Capt. Bertholf. Would they lower all the boats at once ? 

Senator Burton. No; not that. 

Capt. Bertholf. They do lower in emergencies. You see, the 
large liners keep a boat on either side, I suppose to get the pilot, but 
they do lower that boat if a man is overboard. 

Senator Burton. As a matter of practice, the masters of quite a 
number of boats do that. I have seen that done a number of times, 
I shovM think 10 or 12 tines, during trans- Atlantic voyages. 



-SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 207 

Capt. BerthoLf. I have never seen the boats lowered at sea on an 
iteean steamer, arid I have been on several. But I have seen them in 
iky own service. 

I should like to supplement something that Capt. Cooper said. 
Chere are two rules of this convention which if they had been in force 
fctthe time of the Titanic disaster would have prevented this disaster. 
Tie first rule is that if ice is reported on or near the track the master 
DUSt go at moderate speed, or he must leave that portion of the ocean, 
lad the Titanic done either of those things, if she had departed from 
iat portion of the ocean, she would not have hit the iceberg. If she 
ad been running at moderate speed and still have hit the iceberg she 
ould not have damaged herself to so great an extent as to have sunk 
► soon. 

There is still another one. This prescribes a constant wireless watch, 
Lth certain exceptions, and under that constant watch, under that 
jgulation, all of the passenger ships going across the Atlantic would 
3tve to maintain a constant watch, and the unfortunate condition of 
le California would not have obtained. The man would have heard 
i.e signal of distress when he was almost within sight of the Titanic, 
o with the operation of those two rules, the Titanic disaster would, 
ot have happened. You will recall that when the Titanic struck 
Die iceberg tne wireless operator on the California had gone to bed. 
*lie captain did not tell him to get up again to listen. So he did not 
jiow anything about the catastrophe until the next morning, when it 
ras too late. She was only 10 or 15 miles from that ship. Further- 
riore, another rule to wliich I will call attention is the fact that the 
.aptain of the California and his officers seemed to think that those 
ignals from the Titanic were not distress signals, because at that 
aine and at the present time you can use distress signals for other 
purposes. 

Senator SMrrn of Michigan. That is a very charitable view to take 
H it, but I do not recall any testimony that anyone on that vessel 
Sd not understand those signals. 

Capt. Bertholf. The English investigation 

Senator Smfth of Michigan. I understand they got a Uttle different 
viewpoint of it, but there was nothing here on that from the members 
>f that crew. 

Capt. Bertholf. I was taking the excuses given and the reasons 
)r tnat disaster. Those three things would have prevented that 
isaster, or if they had done either one of the three it would have pre- 
ented it. 

Senator Sutherland. Did I understand you to say in the begin- 
ing of your statement that the American commissioners had agreed 
3 ask, as one of the requirements for boat service, that the man 
aould have a year's service at sea ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Or on the Lakes. That was our policy when we 
ecided on it. 

Senator Sutherland. You adopted that unanimously ? 

Capt. Bertholf. I think we did, unanimousljr. 

Senator Sutherland. Wh}^ did you abandon it ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Because in the conamittee meeting it was voted 
)ut. It was considered, as the minutes will show. The English 
)bjection was that this year's service was simply a year of service 
Dd added nothing to the value of the certiftfiaV,^', \Xx»X> XXv^l >«^\^^fc^ 



208 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. j 

efficiency rather than service. Then, also, that that year of serv-^ 
ice at sea* would preclude a lot of men on the English coast who aw. 
good boatmen ^\no never go to sea^ and they could not use them 
on the ships. And, finally, the Enghsh delegation, through Sir Nop- 
man Hill, who is a veiy logical man, said that as long as the Govern* 
ment issued a certificate accepting full responsibiUty for that 
certificate, and the certificate saia that this man was competent, and 
the requirements for competency were that he should be efficienfe 
and know how to handle these boats, lower them and hoist them, 
that was all you could ask for. If a man is competent, what else ia. 
there ? We could not answer such an argument as that. 

Senator Sutherland. Did you finally conclude your position on 
that was wrong, or did you yield to the force of circumstances ? 

Capt. Bertholf. We came to the conclusion that our position on 
that was unnecessary, that it would not do any harm to put. that in, 
we thought, but it does not do any particular good. If a man is a 
competent man, what difference does it make where he gets his ex- 
perience, or how? It is only a question of competency. 

Mr. Alexander. How long did you serve in that service in the. i 
Bering Sea ? 

Capt. Bertholf. I have been in the Bering Sea and the Arctic for -: 
seven cruises — ^in the summer and in the winter. -» 

Mr. Alexander. How many years? 

Capt. Bertholf. Seven years. 

Mr. Alexander. Seven years ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Not seven years, seven cruises, with six months 
or so for each. 

Mr. Alexander. What kind of water do you have up there ? 

Capt. Bertholf. That is rough water. The sea gets up very 
quicKly and goes down very quickly, and we have in that service to 
lower our boats very often to board Japanese sealers or other sealers. 
They lower the boats in pretty rough water, and of course we train 
our men to be able to lower the boats in rough water. It is team 
work, that is all, in lowering a boat at sea. 

Senator Hitchcock. I notice that article 51 provides for musters 
and drills at least once a fortnight, either in port or at sea. 

Capt. Bertholf. That does not stop them from having it at sea 
if they want to. 

Senator Hitchcock. That leaves it optional with the masters 
whether it shall be at sea or not ? 

Capt. Bertholf. No, sir; the Governments agree if they adopt 
this treaty to make laws to enforce this, and since that is so they can 
have the drills at sea or in port. The United States could have them 
all at sea if they wanted to. It is up to the Congress to make laws ■ 
to enforce this treaty. 

Senator Hitchcock. We could only enforce it as to the number of 
vessels we have ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Certainly. 

Senator Hitchcock. Whereas our people are traveling on the other 
vessels. 

Capt. Bertholf. I do not think you could force England to have 
the drills outside of our 3-mile limit. We would have a great deal 
of control, but I do not think we could go that far. But each nation 
should carry out this convention in good faith, and if we did not think 



SAFETY OF UFE AT SEA. 209 

they would do it in good faith there was no reason for sending us over 
[there at all. 

Senator Sutherland. We probably could not force the English 
ships to have certain drills at sea, but we could enforce a requirement 

at they should not clear from our ports unless they had men of a 

irtain experience aboard. 
t Capt. Bertholf. I think they could, as I understand it. I am 
pot much of an international lawyer, but that is one of the principles 

id down or discussed in the conierance. Germany claimed that 
|vas not right, but our claim is that we have full jiu'isdiction over 
oreign vessels when they come to our ports, and we could make them 
conform to any regulation we saw fit. 

Senator Burton. You did not have anything to do with the regu- 
lations in regard to combustible materials in the cargo, did you? 

Capt. Bertholf. No, sir; that is another committee. Mine was 
the committee on safety of navigation. 

I should like to say something in regard to a matter that came to 
my mind from Senator Smith's questions, as to how they would 
^know that this man who brought the certificate was the right man. 
W^e would not know unless we had some regulation of that sort. We 
do not know it now. A man comes aboard my vessel to enlist 
and he has a discharge as an able seaman. I presume he is that man, 
because he is described in that certificate to a hmited extent. But 
he may have received that from another man, so far as I know, or 
exchanged it. That is a matter I think the Governments would 

ve to look out for, to see that the man did not do that. 



STATEMENT OF MB. GEORGE UHLER, SUPERVISING INSPEC- 
TOR GENERAL, STEAMBOAT-INSPECTION SERVICE. 

Mr. Alexander. I should like to have you briefly state to the 
committee what the requirements are in reference to lifeboats. 

The Acting Chairman. State your official position. 

Mr. Uhler. Inspector General of the Steamboat Inspection 
Service* 

Senator Burton. Since when ? 

Mr. Uhler. Since the 1st of April, 1903. That is 11 years. 

Mr. Alexander. What experience did you have at sea ? 

Mr. Uhler. I went to sea, Mr. Chairman, from the time I was 
about 16 years of age until I was more than 40 in different capaci- 
ties, starting at the lowest until when I stopped I was chief engineer 
of one of the Southern Pacific steamships, tne El Sol, which is now 
the Prairie of the United States Navy. 

It so happened that I was distinguished by having been appointed 
by the President as a member of the commission to the conference at 
Liondon on safety at sea, and was selected by the chairman of our 
delegation. Judge Alexander, to represent the American committee 
on life-saving appliances, together with Mr. Furuseth and Capt. 
BuUard, of the JJavy. The committee on life-saving appliances 
gave its attention to the greatest possible number of boat davits 
that could be gotten on a ship in accordance with her length, and 
then that under each one of those sets of davits should be a lifeboat 
of the first class; and if that was not sufficient to accommodate all 
people on board, then they should have additional lifeboats to care 

88444r— 14 14 



210 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

for at least 75 per cent of all on board. And if the lifeboat which 
she carried under those conditions did not meet the capacity for alk 
on board, she would then be allowed to carry a sufficient number of 
life rafts to make up the other 25 per cent. That was to meet con-^ 
ditions which are found in very few cases. There are but few ves-- 
sels in the North Atlantic trade, which is probably the largest carry-* 
ing trade in the world, but could meet tne conditions for lifeboatfli 
for all hands. 

I want to say in that connection, Mr. Chairman, that when the 
proposition was made in the committee for 75 per cent, the Unitedi 
States moved as an amendment that 75 per cent should be replaced! 
by 100 per cent throughout the clause, so that in the committee we 
stood for the conchisions of our preliminary committee in the United 
States. We stood for the conclusions of our delegation in London., 
and presented them to the committee on Ufe-saving appliances of the 
conference, and were voted down by a vote of 12 to 2, Norway voting 
with the United States and all of the rest voting for 75 per cent. 

When it came to the proposition for Ufe rafts, '*Mr. Uhler, of the 
United States of America, moved the omission of the words, ^or by 
rafts of approved type and construction.''' So that we placea 
fairly and squarely before them our position in reference to life rafts. 
We were again voted down by the same vote, Norway voting with 
us on all that, and all the rest of the nations voting unanimously for 
life rafts. 

The Acting Chairman. That was the vote in the full conference f« 

Mr. Uhler. No; that was the vote in the committee, the committee 
on life-saving appliances. 

The Acting Chairman. The committee on life-saving appliances of 
the conference itself ? 

Mr. Uhler. Of the conference; yes; the subcomlnittee. 

Senator McCumber. Each nation was represented? 

Mr. Uhler. Yes. ' 

Senator McCumber. By one vote ? 

Mr. Uhler. By one vote. 

Senator Hitchcock, Did they give any reason why they voted = 
you down on that ? * 

Mr. Uhler. No; except in the general discussion, Senator, that 
they thought there were some cases where it would be necessary for 
vessels carrying a full complement of passengers, and itccording to 
her capacity, that they naught have to have 25 per cent^of rafts. 

I wish to say that there was one opinion riven there. That was 
the opinion of Capt. Charles, the master of the Lusitania, who is a 
sailor of a good deal of distinction and a man of a great deal of expe- 
rience, who has commanded the best steamers owned by the Cunard 
Line, and who has been successful to the last word. He said that he 
felt thev ought to have some rafts, and that under certain conditions 
he would sooner have them than Ufeboats. 

Senator McCumber. I was going to ask you right there to state, 
if you can, what is the diflference in the efficiency of the rafts and the 
lifeboats. 

Senator Burton. Before you pass to that there is one question. 
Is it claimed there would not be room enough for davits for boats for 
all on board ? 

Mr, Uhler. Oh, that is a foregone conclusion. 



I 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 211 

I Senator Burton. That is, you would have to have two and three 

Iboats for each set of davits ? 

f Mr. Uhleb. Yes; and then more set inboard after that. No mat- 

ir what her complement, she must carry lifeboats under davits and 

t from under davits of at least 75 per cent, and if they could not 

t enough boats to carry the full complement after that, then they 

•uld be allowed to have 25 per cent rafts. 

Senator Sutherland. I do not just understand that. How is it 

itermined when they shall resort to rafts ? 

Mr. Uhler. After her capacity gets above 75 per cent, after carry- 
all the boats that they can under davits with the ship fitted with 

many davits as it is possible to fit her and as many boats inboard, 
en ii all of those boats provide for 75 per cent of the whole 

lumber, they must carry in addition 25 per cent in life rafts. 

Senator Sutherland. Do you mean by that that under the con- 
tion a given ship is required to utilize all the available space for 

ats? 

Mr. Uhler. Yes. 

Senator Sutherland. But suppose it has not available boats for 
per cent — then what ? 

Mr. Uhler. Then they will have to reduce their passenger allow- 

ee. These are unique conditions where the hfe rafts come in. 

ere are not many conditions requiring that. 

Senator Smith oif Michigan. In the case of the Olympic they found 

pie Ufeboat room for all. 

Mr. Uhler. Yes. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. They had no difiiculty in storing them ? 

Mr. Uhler. No; with certain kinds. 

Senator Hitchcock. You evidently think they were not any good. 

Mr. Uhler. Sir ? 

Senator Hitchcock. From your tone you have some doubt as to 

eir virtue. 

Mr. Uhler. No, I do not, but they nest them Uke they do dories 
n a boat. They are canvas boats. They use some of them. I do 
iot just exactly remember how many boats the Olympic had of that 
lass. There would be very few occasions when it would be necessary 

carry the extra 25 per cent of rafts. 

Senator Hitchcock. Senator McCumber asked about the rafts. I 
tm curious to know what that is. 

Mr. Uhler. What a raft is ? 

Senator Hitchcock. Yes; how it differs from a boat. 

Senator McCumber. In what respect it would be better, and in y 
what respect worse than the boat. 

Mr. Uhler. In no respect better except in the getting away of a 
aft from a ship. A raft does not have to be launched by davits. A 
nit is of such a construction — it has long cylinder tubes like this 
findicating], 18 or 20 feet in length, 16 or 20 inches in diameter, and 
naif again as wide as this table. The buoyant properties of the raft 
are in these cylinders. Between the two cylinders is built a plat- 
form of latticework just exactly like this table, upon which people 
p) and sit there. The seas will sweep it, and the seas will wasn over 
It, but they have an opportunity to nang onto it, and they have an 
opportunity to keep afloat. In addition to that, we provide life rafts 



212 SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 

with life lines all around them, so that they may hang on. Undq 
the rules of the convention 

Senator McCumber. Does not this convention provide that thesi 
life rafts shall not only have the life lines, but they shall have raised 
fenders on the side, and that the raft shall be reversible, so thd 
whichever way the water is coming it will be equipped to meet it ? 

. Mr. Uhler. I am just coming to that. The rules of this confeq 
ence stipulate that in the construction of what are termed ^^pontooj 
life rafts/' that thev shall be reversible. Our rafts really now ari 
reversible. The rafts we are using are reversible — the America! 
rafts — but they demanded in this convention that the raft shall K 
reversible and shall have collapsible bulwarks on the side and pr<* 
tection pieces on the end of the raft, so as to provide as much si 
possible for the comfort of the passenger, and so they will not was] 
mto the sea. There is a time when a raft could get away from tli 
side of the boat when the lifeboat could not. 

Senator Hitchcock. The people jump into the sea and swim fo 
the rafts ? 

Mr. Uhler. Certainly, sir; they could heave the raft' over like tha 
{indicating]. It would make no difference which end she came down 
she would come up all right, and. there would be a chance to get on 
her. You could not launch a raft with people on it. They wouLj 
have to take to the raft after they got her anoat. Then is the timi 
that the people have to go to the raft. 

Senator Hitchcock. It is a mere temporary expedient, then ? 

Mr. Uhler. Yes, that is it. It is a makeshift at the very best. 
But it does afford a means of protection and a means of saving life, 
because it does keep them afloat. 

Senator McCumber. And it will not capsize ? 

Mr. Uhler. Oh, you can capsize them, but it would take a great 
deal of effort. Ordmarily they wiQ not capsize, Senator. When the 
people scatter on them ordinarily the raft is quite stable, and it wiB 
not capsize. 

Senator McCumber. There is not as much danger in a raft as in a 
boat capsizing ? 

Mr. Uhler. I should say not. But that was voted down, and 
voted down guite substantially. There were 12 voting against, and 
one voting with us, which was Norway. But because they had voted 
down the American proposition for boats for all, I could not find 
myself able to refuse to sign that convention, because the conventior 
in its entirety is so great a step in advance. It is a great deal to kno^ 
that it is agreed to by the 14 prominent maritime nations of the world 
who have given us their word, who have entered into an agreemeni 
with us that they wiQ do the very best thejr can to advance the propo 
sition of safety of life at sea. They say this is the way we propose t( 
do it, and we agree with you, and we wiU do it. 

The committee on lifeboats, first, as I say, went into the estab 
lishment of all the davits which it is possible to get on a ship, an( 
then provided for Ufeboats under these davits. We then went int( 
the construction of lifeboats, so that Italy, if you please, or any o 
the other nations, could not come and say, ^^This is what we call i 
lifeboat.'^ We said, ^^No, that will not go. This is what you hav 
got to call a lifeboat, and this is the onlv lifeboat which will mee 
the necessity and the requirements of a lifeboat under the provision 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 218 

this convention.'' A lifeboat of the first class, of course, would 

an open boat with internal buoyancy, and lifeboat of the second 

would be a boat of external and internal buoyancy, with 

iders and air-tight tanks. There is another class, what we haVe .been 

jed to term a deck lifeboat, that is, a boat with the floor of the 

»at making the air chambers instead of having them on the rfde. 

We went into the ratios of- length, breadth, and depth of those 

>ats so that by no possible chance could a man in his eagerness. to 

lild a boat pf large capacity sacrifice her stability, so that he 

light build her very deep and very narrow. We went into all pf 

josfe things, and it was tnrou^h the wonderful work, the votv valua- 

' I work, of the British commission on boats and davits. Tney had 

311 at work a year on that. 

Senator Hitchcock. Have you any estimate of the cost of a lifeboat 
the second class, to hold 60 people ? 

Mr. Uhler. She would cost anywhere from $1,200 to $1,600, 
spending largely on her construction, whether she was built of 
letal or whether she was built of wood, or whether her air tanks were 
lade of copper or of steel galvanized, and so forth. The committee 
ive a great deal of attention to types and to comparative dimensions, 
I as to establish safety in the construction of a ooat, but leaving to 
rery nation, as it should, the details of construction, as to what the 
>ate should be made of, the material and all that. I stood rather 
torongly on the proposition when thev spoke of the necessity of 
fhaving lifeboats pointed at both ends, for I saw at once that would 
put out of existence one of the very best lifeboats that there is in the 
World and an American lifeboat, a lifeboat which has been adopted by 
the United States Government for the equipment of the Army 
transport service. It was through our persistency right then and 
there that we made them explain and made them acknowledge that 
the boat of which I speak would be considered as a boat of the first 
class, and that she would not be restricted by the fact of her not being 
pointed at both ends. There were 18 meetings of that committee, 
and I want to say that in the 18 meetings, where there was lots of 
chances for strong discussion, where there was a great deal of chance 
for acrimonious argument, every one of those articles was taken up 
and discussed fairly and generously and completely, and the vote 
always carried the voice of the committee. There were lots of times 
when the committee was divided, and strongly divided, and everyone 
persistent in their arguments for certain things. But then the argu- 
ments on the other side made them believe and made them see that it 
was not for the best interests of all. Perhaps it might have been 
better for one individual nation, but for the best interests of all it 
was better that they should not stand for it. And there was never a 
great deal of trouble in convincing them of those propositions. 

Senator Hitchcock. Was the relusal to provide boats for all due 
to the commercial considerations? Was it a matter of economy? 
What was the reason they wanted to leave that 25 per cent of the 
passengers in doubt as to whether they were going to be on a raft or 
on a boat ? 

Mr. Uhler. Simply from the very fact, more than anything else, 
that they could not provide sufficient apparatus for launching these 
extra boats. The boats are filled up unaer the davits, and we have 
all the davits we can possibly carry on the sides of the ship, a boat 



214 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

of the first class^ another boat of the second class^ and still anothel 
boat over that. 

Senator Hitchcock. That is on vessels the way they are built now^ 

Mr. Uhler. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. Do you not think in the future vessels wiE 
be diflferently constructed ? 

Mr. Uhlee. No; we are providing for that. It is the future w« 
are providing for, and the only thing in that direction would hav<^ 
been that a vessel which is completed, and perhaps able to cann 
5,000 people, could not carry but 2,500 because you could not ha^ 
boats enough for that larger number. I think there were two o 
three meetmgs of the committee that I missed on account of sicfe 
ness, but in the 15 meetings which I attended I do not think ther 
ever came to my observation a question as to the cost of equipmeni 

Senator Hitchcock. Take the smaller trans- Atlantic vessels — caj 
they carry lifeboats for all? 

Mr. Uhlek. Yes; I think so. I speak now of the rather smalle 
classes. I think they can carry boats for all. 

Senator Hitchcock. It is only when they get these mammoths thai 
they can not ? 

Mr. Uhler. Yes. I think as a general proposition they can carry 
boats for all. We allow them to carry one-half in rafts now under 
the present rules of the United States. We make them provida 
equipment for everybody, but one-half of it may be in rafts. W* 
did that to relieve a situation that was necessary at the time that w(> 
made them equip for everybody, and it has been carried out until 
to-day. 

Senator Sutherland. There is no diflSculty, is there, in construct- 
ing a ship in such a way that it will carry sufficient lifeboats for all? 

Mr. Uhler. It is according to how many people you are going to 
carry. Senator. 

Senator Sutherland. It depends upon the amount of deck-room 
space you provide ? To the extent that you provide deck-room space, 
I suppose, of course, you exclude space for passengers ? 

Mr. Uhler. The upper decks now are largely taken up. They do 
not use much of the upper deck space for passengers; it is aU taken, 
up for boats. 

Senator Sutherland. In the construction of a ship, knowing iiL 
advance that they have to provide space for enough lifeboats to carry 
all the passengers, it is a perfectly feasible thing to do that, is it not! 

Mr. Uhler. Oh, certainly so. There is no doubt of that. 

Senator Sutherland. It is simply a question of dollars and cents? 

Mr. Uhler. It is simply a question of providing boats first and 
then your passengers afterwards. 

Senator Hitchcock. Suppose they cut out the gymnasium, the 
swimming pool, and the library. 

Mr. Uhler. They could not very well carry boats in there. They 
might as well use that space for those purposes because they could not 
carry the boats in between decks. 

The Acting Chairman. One of your committee in this convention 
was the committee on construction, and under whatever rules or agree- 
ment they arrived at, there would be a certain cost of constructior 
of a vessel of so many tons. Now, about what ratio would the equip- 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 215 

nt of such a vessel with lifeboats bear to the cost of the vessel 
itself? 

Mr. Uhler. Oh, so far as that is concerned, Senator, it would 

hardly be worth calculating when you got into a vessel costing 

|1,500,000 or $5,000,000. The cost of the lifeboats would not enter 

mto the general cost of construction for a moment. It would not 

considered. 

Senator Suthekland. The principal trouble is the taking up of 

e space that would be otherwise devoted to taking care of the 

ssengers? 

Mr. Uhler. I think that is all there is to it. But on the upper 
deck they do utilize the space. The full upper deck is now taken up 
with bosits. There is not much space left. 

Senator Sutherland. If they will utilize the space for that pur- 
pose tJhiere is not the slightest difficulty in providing enough space 
for lifeboats if they will cut down the amount of passenger space in 
alilorder to do it? 

Mr. Uhlek. Except in these very few cases I speak of. 

Senator Hitchcock. You are speaking now of ships that are al- 
ready constructed? 

a J Mr. Uhler. Yes; or of ships that shall hereafter be constructed, v 
nf Senator McCumber. As bearing on the necessity for lifeboats, I 
wish to ask you a question which it may be more proper to ask some- 
one else. It was claimed that the Titanic was constructed so that it 
was practically unsinkable. Have they developed the idea of the 
c| construction of an unsinkable ship enough so that that might have 
a bearing on the construction of lifeboats? 

Mr. Uhler. Yes; as near as they can come to it. Admiral Capps 
was chairman of the committee on construction. But, as has already 
been stated here, they have spent more than 300,000 pounds, I think 
over $1,600,000 on the Olympic to provide against the weaknesses 
of the Titanic, I think the rules of the convention provide for as 
practically an unsinkable ship as commercial conditions will admit. 

Senator McCumber. Is it possible to build one? 

Mr. Uhler. Oh, it is possible to build an unsinkable ship ; yes, sir. 

Senator McCumber. That mav be used successfullv in a commer- 
cial way? 

Mr. Uhler. I fear not; no, sir. 

Senator McCumber. That is the point I wanted to ^et at. 

Mr. Uhler.- I fear not. They can come as near to it as possible 
to come and still use it commercially with two or three compartments 
open to the sea. But Admiral Capps can better explain that because 
he was on that committee. 

But I want to say that in the committee on life-saving appli- 
ances the question of lifeboats, life buoys ,and life preservers 
was all taken up, and there was no limit to the dicussion, and there 
was no gag upon anybody in that convention who wanted to talk 
as long as he pleased upon any matter there. 

Senator Burton. You spoke a while ago of fire. While that was 
not one of the subjects originally intended to come before the con- 
vention, it was myself who introduced before the committee on life- 
saving appliances, and they took it up, acknowledged the necessity for 
it, and it was agreed to in the life-saving committee, and a report 



216 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

was made upon it that the contracting parties would undertake W 
control these conditions. That is, the carrying of unsafe cargo, conwc 
bustible cargo, and so forth. i 

Considerable inquiry has been made, if you will bear with me J^m|— - 
a moment, Mr. Chairman, about test drills. I do not know of anjE^ 
test or any drill that is made by any government in the world to-daj^— 
to test the sufficiency of anything that is a real test. We do rm^^ 
submit a boiler to destruction to test its strength. We can not do it# 
We can not destroy a device to test it. We take a piece of steel whid^ 
goes jnto a boiler, and we test it. We test out its properties, and wjt 
take a space for margin. We allow a certain factor of safety. W* 
construct it the best we can, and when that is through we say thsl* 
this boiler is good for so much. We provide drills of lifeboat men* 
In the service to-day we have a weekly drill which is entered into by" 
all hands on board. We have a rule to-day of the board of supervis- 
ing inspectors which is applicable to all vessels of the United States 
carrying passengers that the lifeboats, the davits, and the gear shall, 
be of such construction and location that the boats can be safely- 
launched inside of 2 minutes from the time of the clearing away of 
the boat is begun. 

Senator Hitchcock. Two minutes ? 

Mr. Uhler. Two minutes. And they do it. They do it in a min- 
ute and a half or a minute and 20 seconds. I have seen these boats 
put overboard from a boat deck 29 feet high in 40 seconds, and nine -- 
streams of water going over the side at the same time in a boat and 
fire drill. But it is not to be presumed for a moment that in time of ^ 
emergency or in time of disaster those boats are going to go into the. - 
water in 2 minutes, or probably in 5 minutes, or probably in 10 . 
minutes. What we do propose to show is that under the best condi- ^ 
tions of that drill which we can make is that the gear is in good : 
condition, that the falls are substantial and are in good shape, and ^ 
that the men can do their work when it comes to the test to do it. a 
Any drill or any test is simply comparative; it is not real. > - 

Senator Hitchcock. You do not believe in drills in rough water? 

Mr. Uhler. I do not. I do not believe in having a drill that will 
risk the life of any man. We have sham battles to test the efficiency 
of soldiers and of the officers and of the medical corps, and all that. 
We are supposed to slioot down a lot of men, and they bring up their 
ambulances and tote them off to the hospital, but it is hard to tell 
what the discipline would be in that service under real conditions. 
We might do the very same thing, but when we called for that opera- . 
tion or called for that demonstration under actual circumstances we 
do not know whether the driver of the ambulance would be there or 
not. and we do not know whether the horses would be there. So that 
1 say all of these tests, all of these drills, and all of these demonstra- 
tions are comparative at their best. They are not real, nor can they 
be real. But I believe in drills, and I have always stood for them. 
I have stood for every demonstration that will make absolute effi- 
ciency and ])roficiencv, every requirement that the Steamboat Inspec- 
tion Service has laid down. But there is a limit, and I think we 
have gone the limit. 

Mr. Alexander. What would you say in regard to the manning 
of the lifeboats? That was a subject, of course, your committee had 
jurisdiction of. . 



11:1 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 217 

Mi\ Uui^R. We provided in our committee, Mr. C lairman, that 
in addition to a man being drilled in the operation of launching and 
rowing, and all that sort of thing, that he should have served a 
|Jear in the deck department on the ocean, or on the lakes, bays, or 
Isonnds, but it did not prevail. Capt. Bertholf has very fully ex- 
" ;ined that, and the reason why it did not prevail. It was simply 
iuse it would take away the right of the different States to say 
leally what was efficiency in boat hands, so that if a man is efficient, 
if he only has three months' experience, what mattei^s it so he is 
S/abed for a certificate? He will not get a certificate from me imtil 
^t^he is fit; I will tell you that; if I have anything to do with it. I 
mxy not, though. 
But considerable has been said here, to-day, Mr. Chairman, about 
bj|tiie possibility of a master of a ship issuing these certificates. I 
think he ought to do it. I think that he is the man who ought to 
ii«|pve these certificates of competency. I think that is the man who 
btlj ought to examine these people and find out whether or not they are 
fel]: competent, so that if disaster does come to his ship, and his men fail, 
r o! he will not have the chance to say that somebody else said these 
men were efficient : " I did not know whether or not they were, but 
they came to me with a certificate." But if disaster does come to 
him and they fail him in time of emergency, he is the man who issued 
tvdcjthe certificates, and he is the man w^ho ought to answer. I do not 
-^^jbelieye in taking away from the master of a ship the authority that 
^^'^j naturally and really belongs to him. T do not believe in doing it 
"I by law, and I do not believe in doing it by regulation. Just as soon 
"I as we get that far that we take away from tlie master of a ship the 
^" responsibility for the navigation and operation of that ship, just 
so far we are on the other path, and we are going down, and the 
^1 discipline and the organization and 'discipline is destroyed abso- 
'■ lately, and the captain of that ship is no better than the mess boy. 
Senator Hitchcock. Take the case of a vessel which has got to 
sail at a certain time, and the captain has got to get a crew. Would 
not the exigencies of the case lead him to take men that he will ex- 
amine rather hastily under those circumstances? 

Mr. Uhler. No, sir; not if he maintains the dignity and the man- 
hood that he ought to have if he is captain of a ship. 

Senator Hitchcock. There have been a great many cases in which 
these masters have taken men who were not competent. 

Mr. Uhler. Well, probably so. I may not be competent to speak 
of those things, but my idea of responsibility, my idea of duty, my 
idea of dignity and of manhood has been always so that I could not 
be induced to do anything that I did not think w^as right. I judge 
other men by myself, and I do not believe that there are a great 
many men in the world who will do those things. I do not think 
there are a great many captains of ships crossing the Atlantic or 
crossing any other sea that have under their care thousands of pas- 
sengers in a big ship and wdth a big cargo that are going to take 
diances. 
e Senator Hitchcock. In the case of the Tlfank\ I was present at 
some of the hearings, and some of the men who testified seemed to 
cT he very inferior men. I remember especially, Senator Smith, the 
or* lookout" there. That man made a vers' bad impression upon me. 
Senator Smith of Michigan. Yes? 



218 SAFETY OF IJFE AT SEA. 

Senator Hitchcock. I could not see the reason why the master put 
such a man as that on the lookout. 

Mr. Uhler. Well, I do not know. He might make a pretty good 
man on the lookout, Senator, and yet would not make a very good 
witness. 

Senator Hitchcock. He did not seem to make a very good man on 
the lookout. 

Mr. Uhler. One of the very best officers that I think was on the 
Titanic was a man of whom, as I said to Senator Smith, as I safc 
alongside of him, " I do not think much of this fellow." But inside 
of half an hour I felt that he was the best man on the ship. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Yes, and a number of gentlemen 
suggested that the captain of the CcHijomia was the best witness 
there. But he was the poorest man in an emergency. But I do not 
quite agree with you. General. I am sorry to hear you say that this 
authority should be delegated to the master without any requirement 
as to efficiency. 

Mr. Uhler. Why, it is there. Let him exact this. Let the captain 
administer this. We say it is within the province of the Govern- 
ment. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. We fix the standard. 

Mr. Uhler. This convention fixes the standard. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. But the very office over which you 
preside has the standard of efficiency fixed by law. 

Mr. Uhler. Oh, no. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Yes, it does. You can not hire a . 
clerk who does not come up to a certain standard. You can not 
emplov anybody in your department that does not come up to a cer- 
tain standard. 

Mr. Uhler. Oh, yes; I know that. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. And within that standard you have 
very little discretion. 

Mr. Uhler. We have no discretion at all. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. You have no discretion at all. I do 
not say you always get the best men, but it is supposed to have some 
efficiency. 

tfr. Uhler. I did not have reference to the civil-service proposi 
tion at that time. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. I did. 

Senator Hitchcock. This convention does not reajlly fix it as to 
who shall issue these certificates. It leaves it to each Government. 

Mr. Uhler. It leaves to each Government the nomination as to' 
who shall administer the law, or who shall execute it. Here is the 
proposition we lay down, that the efficiency shall not be less than this. 
X ou shall have men who are trained thus and so. You shall have 
men who have demonstrated they are fit for the certificate. Now- 
then, let this Government say under the provisions of article so ana. 
so of this convention the Steamboat Inspection Service is vested witl^ 
the authority to issue this certificate, or the master of the ship upoix 
which these men serve shall issue this certificate. 

Senator Hitchcock. Suppose you had the responsibility, and the 
man came to you with a certificate from the commander from one of 



SAFETY OP LIFE AT SEA. 219 

the well-known ocean vessels that he was an able seaman, would 
you take that as j&nal ? 

Mr. Uhler. No; I would not. He would have to show me more 
tiian that. 

I wish to say, gentlemen, that I thought veiy much of this conven- 
tion. While the things did not come just exactly as I wanted them, 
md they did not come just exactly as the American delegation 
ranted them, or perhaps they did not come just exactly as the Ameri- 
an people wanted them to come, I felt a distinguished honor when 

was authorized to go up there and sign that convention and put 
ly name to a conference that certainly and absolutely and truly has 
Ivanced the condition of safety at sea. 

CATEHENT OF MB. ETTGENE T. CHAIOEBLAIN, COMMISSIONEB 

OF NAVIGATION. 

Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I will occupy 
lore than six minutes of your time. The provisions of the conven- 
Lon in regard to radio-telegraphy are found in chapter 5. That 
hapter is already, I may say, familiar to most of you gentlemen, 
n lact, some of you had a very considerable share in forming it in 
he legislation which the United States has already enacted. The 
chapter in its substantial features is based on the American law, 
Nith amplifications, and to my way of thinking, at least, improve- 
nents. 

Article 31, on page 15 of the pamphlet, provides : 

All merchant vessels belonging to any of the contracting States, whether they 
are propelled by machinery or by sails, and whether they carry passengers or 
not shall, when engaged on the voyages specified in article 2, be fitted with a 
radio-telegraph installation, if they have on board 50 or more person in all. 

Advantage may not be taken of the provisions of articles 2 and 3 of this con- 
vention to exempt a vessel from the requirements of this chapter. 

That, as you will doubtless recall — certainly two or three of the 
Senators here will, as they have had to do with that legislation — is 
the provision of our own act. Originally our act of 1910 related to 
oassenger ships. But a bill was introduced in 1911 by the Senator 
from Nebraska, which was the occasion of an amplification of our 
egislation, so that the apparatus was required on freight vessels as 
v^ell as on passenger vessels, and 50 persons was the limit. That 
5 identically our law. The conference requirement goes beyond the 
^erican law to this extent : Our law relates only to steamers, and 
his conference requirement, you will notice, applies to vessels pro- 
>elled by machinery or by sails. The provision in regard to sails is 
lot very important, because there are not so many sail vessels that 
lave over 50 on board. As you know, the sailing vessel is practically 
sxtinct. There are so few of them at the present time that it is al- 
most an inappreciable factor in international commerce, except in a 
few out-of-tne-way trades. And, as I say, I doubt if the provision 
in regard to sail vessels would apply to possibly more than 50 or 00 
throughout the world, although on the Pacific coast there are oc- 
casionally large sail vessels that take a number of fishermen up to 
Alaska, and this would afford them a protection that at the present 
time thej do not have under our law. And I take it that those who 



820 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

are opposing the proposals of the convention are with full knowledge : 
placing themselves in opposition to this requirement among others. r. 

The provisions in regard to vessels which are propelled by ma- > 
chinery instead of by steam are designed to cover the new type of e 
diips which are using the Deisel engines, which are internal combus- z 
tion engines and used in ships which would not be properly classed aa 
steam vessels. That looks more to the future than to the present time, i 

So much as to the general type of vessels which are included within 
the requirements of the convention. Following that, in article 32, 
you will find a few minor exceptions as to cases when the ship may 
have 50 persons or more on board. It reads : 

Vessels on which the number of persons on board is exceptionally and tempo- 
rarily increased up to or beyond 50 as the result of force majeure, or because 
the master Is under the necessity of Increasing the number of his crew to 
fill the places of those who are ill, or is obliged to carry shipwrecked or other 
persons, are exempted from the above obligation. 

That is^ cover the rare cases when a ship miay be at sea, and may 
have to pick up people who are shipwrecked, and that will swell 
the number beyond the limit of 50, and you really, under a strict 
interpretation of the treaty, would have to have the wireless, but, 
of course, you can not adapt yourself to that condition then. 

In all these cases please bear in mind there are no permanent excep- 
tions made. It is 50 or more, as I say, except in these rare cases. The - 
convention requirement goes beyond the American law in its second ^ 
step. Our law, section 2, requiring the wireless apparatus, reads : 

Tlie provisions of this section shall not apply to steamers plying between ports v 
or places less than 200 miles apart. 

Vessels that go to places less than 200 miles apart are absolutely r 
exempt under ovir law. Whether it is desirable or not, they do not > 
have to have it ; there is no obligation on them. But the convention ^ 
makes no such exception. The exception may be made, however, ^ 
under these conditions. I will read now from the second paragraph 
of article 32 : 

Moreover, the Governments of each of the contracting States, if they consider 
that the route and the conditions of the voyage are such as to render a radio- 
telegraph installation unreasonable or unnecessary, may exempt from the above . 
requirement the following vessels: 

Then follow the exemptions: 

(1) Vessels which in the course of their voyage do not go more than 150 : 
sea miles from the nearest coast. 

That is the broadest possibility of exemption, but in any case of 
that kind, in any given vessel, or in any given voyage, it must be 
demonstrated that the requirement of the installation would be 
unreasonable or unnecessary. 

The second exemption is to cover a rather peculiar situation which 
arises once in a while. AVe have it occasionally in the West Indies, 
where the ships which go out of New York and through the West 
Indies to Central America and West Indian ports, stop at Turks 
Island, and two or three of the other islands, and take on stevedores 
to discharge cargo at Central American ports and ports in Santo 
Domingo, and some in Jamaica, where it is a little hard to find steve- 
dores. They put these men on at Turks Island, until they do the ^ 
nof/i. nnd when the ship conies back they put them ashore. Tem- 



SAFETY OF UFE AT SEA. 221 

|M;iarily these men are on board. Our law does not cover them at 
iiie present time. They have a similar situation in several parts 
»f the coast of Africa and on tiie coubl of Asia, so we were informed 
in the conference. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. This 150-mile provision changes our 
radio rules? 

Mr. Chamberlain. The whole reijuirement is more rigorous than 
Durs. Our law provides that any shij) plying between ports less than 
WO miles apart shall be exempt. So it is a different law. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. I think in framing the bill we had 
a mind that the ship which went 150 miles from shore, if equipj)ed 
dth radio apparatus, would be able to take a distress message, per- 
aps, from some vessel in its vicinity, and thereby be enabled to ren- 
er a prompt and efficient service. That is one of the reasons why 
re made no limitations. It seems to me that t^as a point that we 
hould have insisted upon, if possible, although I am not criticising 
ou for failure to do it. 

Mr. Chamberlain. I was not criticizing the legislation, because 
his convention, as 1 say, is really an extension of the foundation 
hat was laid right here in the Capitol. It is an improvement, and 
t would have been very remarkable, having the advantage of all that 
vas said and done on that subject here, if there had not been an im- 
Drovement. Then, of course, there is the exemption as to dhows, 
junks, and so forth. We do not have any dhows or junks around 
this way, but this convention is designed to cover the whole world. 

Senator Burton. What is a dhow ? 

Mr. Chamberlain. A dhow is a kind of a boat — do not ask me to 
describe it in particular, because I can not. The dhow proposition 
came from Berlin. They have dhows in one of the German prov- 
inces in Africa. They are a primitive build. They did not furnish 
us with a diagram, and I have not had a chance to consult the en- 
cyclopedia. We do not have anything of that kind. 

So much, generally speaking, for the range of vessels covered by 
the convention. 

I take it the n,ext step in logical order would be the apparatus 
itself, which you will find in article 35, which reads : 

The radiotelegraph installations required by article 31 above shall be capable 
>f transmitting clearly perceptible signals from ship to ship over a range of at 
east 100 sea miles by day under normal conditions and circumstances. 

Every vessel which is required, in conformity with the provisions of article 
►1 above, to be fitted with a radiotelegraph installation shall, whatever be the 
ilass in which it is placed, be provided, in accordance with article 11 of the 
regulations annexed to the International Radiotelegraph Convention, 1912, 
vith an emergency installation, every part of which is placed in a position of 
Jxe greatest possible safety, to be determined by the Government of the coun- 
n^ to which the vessel belongs. 

In all cases the emergency installation must be placed, in its entirety, In 
the upper part of the vessel, as high as practically possible. 

The emergency installation includes, as provided by article 11 of the regula* 
tions annexed to the International Radiotelegraph Convention, 1912, an inde- 
pedent source of energy, capable of bein^ put into operation rapidly and of 
"working for at least six hours, with a minimum range of 80 sea miles for ves- 
sels in the first class and 50 sea miles for vessels in the two other classes. 

If the normal installation, which in accordance with this article has a range 
of at least 100 sea miles, satisfies all the conditions prescribed above, an 
emerg^icj installation is not required. 



222 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

The license provided for in Article IX of the regulations annexed to the 
international radiotelegraph convention, 1912, may not be issued unless tbe^ 
installation complies both with the provisions of that convention, and also 
with the provisions of this convention. 

That is the range and requirement of the American law. The im- 
provement which is made, I think, is one rather in form than sub- 
stance. The words " clearly perceptible signals " are used, which I 
think is an improvement over the general requirement of our law. 

The next important step — and I am trying to give these in the /- 
logical order rather than in following the numerical order of the 
pages, if that is agreeable to the conmiittee — the next important stepj- 
and'the one which involved the longest effort on our p?irt; I will noti 
say the hardest, but it led to a great deal of discussion, and I am glad 
to say to a gradual change of front in the committee that had this 
matter in charge. TSiat was as to the importance of the continuous 
watch on shipboard, and the gentleman who is responsible for that 
more than anyone else sits rignt at the end of the table, because the \'_ 
first bill which was introduced having that in mind, so far as I know, 
was introduced by Senator Hitchcock of NeBraska, after an incident 
which happened in the West Indies, with which you are all doubtless 
familiar. The American law reads as follows : 

The radio equipment must be in charge >of two or more persons skiUed in 
the use of such apparatus, one or the other of whom shall be on duty at all 
times while the vessel is being navigated. Such equipment, operators, the 
regulation of their watches, and the transmission and receipt of messages, 
except as may be regulated by law or international agreement, shall be under 
the control of the master, in the case of a vessel of the United States; and 
every willful failure on the part of the master to enforce at sea the provisions 
of this paragraph as to equipment, operators, and watches shall subject him to 
a penalty of $100. 

That is the provision in our law for a continuous or constant wire- 
less watch, and as I say it was the outgrowth of an incident which 
caused Senator Hitchcock to introduce his measure, which became 
our law in 1912. The penalty is on the master of a vessel of the 
United States. It applies only, of course, to a vessel of the United 
States. We have no control, at least, to the extent of regulating the 
watches and saying what shall be done by a German ship in the 
middle of the Atlantic Ocean, under the command of a German 
master, and manned by a German crew. Congress, of course, did not 
undertake to say that the Germans should take turn and turn about 
in listening at the wireless apparatus. That, I take it, would be quite 
out of the question ; it would not be considered. 

The convention provides that there shall be a continuous watch in 
two classes of vessels that I will read briefly. One is vessels of 13 
knots or over, and another vessels of 12 knots or over, carrying a cer- 
tain number of people. But beyond that, on all other vessels speci- 
fied in article 31 — that is the general type of vessels that I have just 
been speaking of — the entire class, on other vessels when they are en- 
gaged in the trans- Atlantic trade. By the adoption of this conven- 
tion — this part of it at all events — the Senate of the United States 
will contribute toward the securing, if that be deemed an object 
worth accomplishing, of a continuous wireless watch on all vessels 
that cross the Atlantic Ocean — not only in trade with the United 
States. At one time we wonVd Yvave \5efcTi V^\t^^ \ici ^^\£L^"t^\s!bfifc ^^ 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 228 



ID: 



tat if we could have gotten that, but when we saw that we could 
get a little more we asked for a little more. It is on all vessels in the 
trans- Atlantic trade. 
Article 31 reads : 

All merchant vessels belonglug to any of the contracting States, whether 
they are propelled by machinery or by sails, and whether they carry passengers 
or not, shall, when engaged on the voyages specified in article 2, be fitted with 
a radiotelegraph installation, if they have on boat 50 or more persons in all. 

x\rticle 34 reads in part as follows : 

(3) Other vessels specified in article 31, when they are engaged in the trans- 
Atlantic trade, or when they are engaged in other trades if their route takes 
them more than 1,000 sea miles from the nearest coast. 

That covers the Pacific, as you will readily see. For, of course, 
you can not cross the Pacific, even to Hawaii, without going more 
than 1,000 miles from the coast, because Hawaii is 2,000 miles off. 
So that covers the Pacific side of the United States, and, of course, 
South America is taken in as well as the others. 

Those are the two salient features. I think the other matters are 
referred to with reasonable particularity in the pages of the report 
devoted to radiotelegraphy, beginning at page 94 and ending at 
page 98. 

Mr. Alexander. I will ask Admiral Capps to speak now. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL WASHINGTON L. CAPPS, CHIEF 

CONSTRUCTOR, UNITED STATES NAVY. 

Adn^iral Capps. Mr. Chairman, I think, without going into detail, 
it might be helpful if I explained one or two matters which have 
come up incidentallj^ in the course of these hearings. The conference 
was composed of 96 delegates and technical experts, representing 14 
I different countries. It was decided at the beginning of the confer- 
I ence to divide its work among five committees, upon each committee 
being representatives of each nation participating in the conference. 
These committees then became, in effect, small conferences, and the 
work of the whole conference was so ordered by reason of interlocking 
memberships of the committees, — members keeping in touch with 
their main delegation, — ^that when the work of the committees was 
completed it practically voiced the sentiment of the conference as a 
whole. Had that procedure not been adopted I do not think we could 
have accomplished one-tenth of the work that really was accomplished. 
The preliminary arrangements which had been discussed by Eng- 
land, France, and Germany, and which have been alluded to, were 
nothing more than intelligent, earnest efforts to prepare some founda- 
tion upon which the conference could base effective work. 
Senator Williams. Were we called into any of those meetings? 
Admiral Capps. We were called in most earnestly. The matter was 
presented, as was stated, I think, quite fully yesterday, to the Con- 
gress through the Department of Commerce, but funds were not 
available to send anyone over there. The Secretary of Commerce, 
however, with the cooperation of the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
the Secretary of the Navy, constituted committees of Government 
officials, of one of which I had the honor to be a member. This com- 
mittee was formed in May, 1913. It immediately prepared a circular 



224 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

and list of questions, and sent it out broadcast, through the Depart- 
ment of Commerce, to over 200 people, and answers were received 
from some of the most important of tnose to whom these letters were 
addressed. i 

Senator Wuaaams. Who were those people to whom it was sent? ! 

Admiral Capfs. All large shipbuilding firms, ocean-going steam- 1 
ship companies, profcvssors of naval architecture, and others who had j 
shown a large, mtelligent interest in the subjeSct involved. And a ' 
final request was made for suggestions from anyone who had any- 
thing to suggest. I may say that after the recipients read the cate- 
gorical questions, the answers were very carefully worded, and not 
5 per cent of those to whom interrogatories were addressed committed 
themselves in writing. The committee considered those replies, and 
drew up a preliminary report, which was submitted to the Secretary 
of Commerce. That report was referred to by our chairman in pre- 
senting the case on the first day. It was submitted on September 13, 
1913. That report represented the work of this particular conmiittee 
for the consideration of the conference when it took place in Lon- 
don, (xreat Britain, France, and Germany had done similar work, 
with the very important exception that they had been at this work 
very much longer than the United States representatives had been* 
They had also ample resources. One Government spent nearly 
$100,000 in investigating one subject with which this committee 
on construction was charged, and they have not completed their re- 
port yet, because they are going into great detail. The conmiittee on 
construction, as I have said, was composed of representatives from 
14 different nations. Thirty-two altogether were on the conmiittee, 
and of that number 17 were Government officials, and were thor- 
oughly informed on the questions to be brought before them. They 
were men of high, place in their own country, and had nothing what- ' 
ever to gain except by following the dictates of their conscience and 
doing good work ; two were professors of naval architecture in royal 
universities ; three were technical directors of great registration socie- 
ties, whose business it is to make rules for the classification of vessels, 
and to see that the vessel builders live up to those rules ; seven were 
managing directors of ship-owning firms, or directors, and three were 
shipbuilders. 

We had in the American delegation one of those shipowners and 
one of those shipbuilders, and it is a very great pleasure for me to 
say that the only approach to a complaint that I have heard concern- 
ing the work of those two gentlemen came from gentlemen on sub- 
conimittees on which they served, and in each case the criticism was 
that these gentlemen were inclined entirely too much to radicalism in 
the way of subordinating everytliing to safety. I think that is a 
tribute that I ought to pay, because not once during the meetings of 
the main committee or any of the subcommittees did I hear any 
objection concerning the cost of doing things necessary for safety. 
The question of practicability and feasibility occasionally arose, but 
the question of cost alone did not come in. In fact, one of the princi- 
pal officials — not a member of my committee — said that he was afraid 
that we had on our committee too many men who were not at all 
concerned in the economic conditions involved. 

This I say merely to put aside, once for all, any idea that the labors 
of this committee were influenced in the slightest degree by the cost of 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 225 

iracticable changes, provided we got an adequate return in increased 
ftfety. 

The committee met the very day it was appointed. We had alto- 
>diher 51 sessions of the main committee and tne subcommittees. The 
subject was one which was recognized as having great difficulty, 
lifter two weeks of work, at a meeting of the president's committee, 
It which our chairman. Judge Alexander, was present, the president 
of the ccMiference said to me, " I do not want to shock you, but in the 
time available we hardly think it possible for your conunittee to get 
itt a complete repoit ; we do expect, however, to get in reports from 
til the other committees." 

• I repeat this merely by way of indicating that it was new and 
difficult work, and many of us went into it with a good deal of fear 
that we could not bring out satisfactory results in the time at our 
disposal, because the questions were exceedingly difficult ones. It 
was not a mere question of dealing with the very largest ships. We 
had to consider the ships pf all the countries of the wcwld engaged in 
all the diflFerent kinds of passenger traffic of the world, and we had 
to be very careful not to become engrossed in detail and let the big 
principles escape. 

I believe that I would be correct in stating that Tiad the work of 
the committee been so handled that no final report was submitted at 
this conference there might have been a large number of people who 
would have been perfectly well satisfied. I do not say that in the way 
rfthe sli^test criticism, but simply because the subjects were difficult 
jmd complex, and there were apprehensions that determinate action 
k advance of definite knowledge of what could be achieved would 
[do far more damage than good. But we kept at it and finally 
evolved a unanimous report, which I do not hesitate to say would 
certainly not have been signed by the members of that committee 
during the first two weeks of our sittings. It was a case of gradual 
education and evolution. I w^ant to say right here that we do not 
claim for this part of the convention that ideals have been realized — 
Very far from that. We do not claim that you will have unsinkable 
ships. That is a consmnmation which I doubt ever will be attained 
in practice. You must still reckon with the unknown and the possi- 
bihty of fatal casualty. It simply means that we have unquestion- 
ably, in the opinion of men who are competent to pass judgment, set 
iin international standard which exceeds in superiority the standard 
adopted or in practice by the most advanced of the nations, at the 
time the conference met in London. The most difficult of all the 
subjects considered was that of the subdivision of the ship itself. 
That is the real Rock of Gibraltar of life-saving, to save the ship 
itself. 

The question of " subdivision " is complex even for those who are 
well versed in matters of that kind. Three nations brought forward 
three different sets of propositions. Our final accepted proposition 
reponesented neither one of them. It was not a compromise, even. We 
bM to break fredi ground and build up afresh, but we were all being 
anlig^tened and learning something as we went along. The standurd 
finally fixed for ships or different lengths was one which the Ameri- 
can del^^ti<m did not approve of in the beginning. We made a 

88 114 1 4- — ^15 



226 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

proposition for a higher standard, and we urged it, and meeting 
were adjourned from time to time in order that full consideratioi 
could be given. It was not that the others preferred a lower standar(3 
but they were not at all convinced, and are not now, that the standar< 
we desired to impose in the particular way we desired to impose it 
was practicable. It was a perfectly honest difference of opinion iii 
which we were in a minority of one. There was no feeling, but then$ 
was tension for a little while. Then came forth a proposition ttf 
make provision for increasing the degree of safety, if such went 
practicable. A clause to that effect was presented, fully debated, mi- 
finally passed unanimously. So the net result of the deliberations oa 
the most important subject before the construction committee was thai 
we established and wrote into the convention requirements which weil' 
in excess of those in general practice by the most advanced nation 4^ 
the time of the meeting of the conference, and those requirements ai 
followed by a distinct independent article in the convention, whk 
makes provision for exceeding those requirements and for enterii 
upon the " safety certificate " of the vessel the fact that such require* 
ments have been exceeded, if a vessel is built exceeding those rw 
quirements ; thereby placing a direct premium upon shipowners builAi 
ing, not just barely to reach the standard, but to go well beyon4 
the standard, if they can^ and get tlieir credit mark on their safetj 
certificate. 

This point was immediately grasped by those who were concernel 
in operating ships, and afterwards it was quite freely stated that (A 
course nobody was going to be so foolish as not to do as well as hf 
can. The most practical way in the world to stimulate excellence ill 
ship construction is to be able to set forth, or have it set forth, bf 
authorized Government officials that "this ship has not only mei| 
but exceeds the requirements for a vessel of her class as defined bf 
the International Conference on Safety at Sea." And the travelin| 
public is quite keen enough to read and investigate that statement 1:^ 
a steamship company. 

But I shall not go into the details of subdivision. It is quite toe 
complex, and I do not feel that I ought to burden you with it except 
to make brief comment. One often hears about one-compartmen: 
ships, two-compartment ships, three-compartment ships, and so om 
It is all meaningless, unless you know the premises upon which thos« 
statements are based. The major premise is the degree of permem 
hility of the compartments themselves, and by that I mean this : Tht 
London convention requires that, in making calculations to determim 
the class the vessel shall be placed in as to buoyanijVj the pemu^ 
ability of the cargo space shall be 60 per cent and of the machiner; 
space 85 per cent and of the double bottoms 95 per cent, and so oC 
What that means is this: That when the vessel is deep laden, filler 
with cargo so that she floats at her load line, if she be rated as 
two-compartment ship, she shall float with two adjoining comparl 
ments in free communication with the sea, and admitting water equis 
to 60 per cent of the total volume that that compartment would admJ 
if empty. In the case of the machinery space,' it means that there cai; 
be admitted 85 per cent of the total volume in that space. In tb 
beginning, therefore, full allowance is made for the vessel being de0 
laden, and when the vessel is in light cargo, or the hold filled up bu 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 227 

I 

vessel not down to her load line, it is almost invariably the case 

twith passenger vessels that there is a margin of safety. By insisting 

|on high requirements such as these high percentages of permeability, 

|we strike the keynote of safety in that direction. One of the most 

3rominent gentlemen there, a very eminent naval architect, said : 

" If we had known that the conference or the committee was going 

raise the requirement as to subdivisions to such a degree, we would 

llave felt justified in bringing forward less exacting conditions as to 

(permeability." 

Senator Hitchcock. Do those conditions increase the cost of con- 
structing vessels? 

Admiral Capps. The increased efficiency of subdivision does un- 
loubtedly, I think. There was scarcely an improvement recom- 
Imended by that committee that does not add to the cost of the ship, 
^particularly with respect to the bulkhead arrangements, the arrange- 
ment for closing dpors, ports, openings, and everything of that kind, 
i Having alluded to the general requirements as to the subdivision of 
the vessel itself, I might state in passing that the program of the 
conference provided for a certain range of work. That was decided 
on at our second meeting. That you will find in fine type on page 83 
f€f the document before you. It occupies about a third of that page. 

In outlining the work which was to be performed by the three 

subcommittees of this main committee on construction, the chair- 

kman drew up a very much amplified set of details to be worked upon, 

pAnd those you will find in fine print on pages 84, 85, and 86. This 

lows the degree to which the original precept of the conference was 

:panded. All of this work was taken up by the various subcom- 

dttees. 

Now, going back to the convention itself, just to give a running 
^dication of the work actually done. On page 12 is the beginning 
>f the chapters on construction, chapter 4 — page 12 of the pamphlet, 
[t became desirable in the very beginning, — or at least the question 
was brought up, — ^to determine the type and class of vessels to which 
[the provisions of the convention would apply^. Immediately many 
difficulties arose. Certain countries had certain classes of trade that 
id to be considered. So, very shortly, this question was put to one 
kSide, and we dealt with the general subject, and let the definition come 
^in later on, which was done. Then it became necessary to make 
some distinction as to "existing vessels" and vessels which might 
^be constructed hereafter. That was a perfectly proper point to brmg 
^ap, and a very essential one. In the case of fittings, equipage, and so 
forth, it was quite possible to make improvements. In the case of 
|itaructural subdivision of a vessel already constructed it was mani- 
Lfestly impracticable in most cases to make the vessel meet the new 
[wquirements. So it was decided that the provisions in their entirety 
^would apply to all vessels built after July 1, 1915. For "existing 
1 vessels" tne procedure was left in the hands of the government of 
le State whose flag the vessels carried. See article 16 of convention. 
Subsequently, there was an attempt made to modify this article so 
mt jurisdiction of the State would be only over the equipage of a 
lip. That was objected to strongly, however, and the division re- 
amed as it was before, the jurisdiction of the States over existing 
[vessels being unimpaired. They are required to do whatever is 
[practicable and reasonable to do. 



228 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Senator O'Gorman. Do you mean in excess of the plan agredf 
upon by the conference? 

Admiral Capps. Any State niay raise the standard for its own shipf 
just as much as it pleases, but no State can lower it. In fact, we ptf 
it in plain words, " These are minimum requirements." And then it 
the case of the most important subject, the subdivision of ships, yrt 
provide the machinery by which the requirements can be exce^dej 
and credit therefor given on the safety certificate of the vessels. ^ 

Senator Smith of Michigan. Do the requirements of the conven-- 
tion exceed the voluntary standard fixed by the Olympic? *- 

Admiral Capps. Oh, no; not for all ships. 

Senator Smith of Michigan. They do not? 

Admiral Capps. For vessels of very large size, like the OlymfU^ 
you can require many things that are practically prohibitive on vessela 
which are much smaller, and changes made on the 'Olympic^ at least 
some changes, are more likely to be morally eflfective than actually 
effective under conditiohs prevailing similar to those on the Titardek 
In other words, the sort of disaster which overtook the Titaauc ought 
never to have occurred, and we all devoutly trust it will never occme 
again, and it should not occur again if the rules of this convention are 
observed. 

Senator Lodge. -It is just a construction matter? 

Admiral Capps. No, sir; it is more than that. One of the thingf 
that the committee on construction had very much at heart was tc 
remove once and for all the idea that ships built for average, or eveK 
above-average commercial traffic, can be designed to be unsinkable-il 
foolish chances are taken in navigation. The fact is, and we haF« 
emphasized it in the report of the committee prepared for the Presm 
dent, that no matter what arrangements are provided in this convea 
tion for increasing the safety of construction, it is absolutely imperat 
tive that all those who are charged with the management of ships 
either as owners or as masters, should never relax for one instant tli< 
greatest degree of vigilance in order that they might supplement thi 
superiority of construction by prudence of navigation. That is reallj 
fundamental in promoting safety at sea. 

As an abstract proposition I believe it true, and I believe all mj 

Professional colleagues would accept as correct the statement thai 
ad the Titanic not swerved from her course, but gone straight afc 
the iceberg at full speed the loss of life would have oeen much lessu 
But very few men would care to take the awful responsibility oC 
deciding to imperil the lives of a few hundred people in order to safij« 
perhaps a few thousand, when there might be a chance of saving thent- 
all by putting the helm hard over. 

Senator Eoot. What would have been the probable consequence^^ 
if the T'i^amt? had gone straight ahead into the Derg? 

Admiral Capps. Going straight ahead, the forward part of the shifts 
would be crushed out of all recognition, possibly as far back as tO- 
or 100 feet, but that would not have sunk the ship in all probabiliiyc 
and the force and time taken to crumple up this lorwanj end of tli 
ship would gradually bring the ship to rest, so that her bulkheadffi 
abaft the crushed portion would very probably. have remained intacU 

However, surmise of this sort is not very important now. Such aii 
disaster indicates that the most unwise thing in navigation would \3^ 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 229 

to impress upon either those who have charge of ships or those who 
»il in ships that you have an unsinkable vessel and that you can 
ifford to take risks. You can not afford to take risks in any ship 
carrying a great many passengers; in fact, you ought not to take 
jJxem unnecessarily at any time. In the case of war vessels in time 
Ikf war you may take risKs that give a reasonable chance of success. 
rhat is war. But unnecessary risks are not justified for any vessel in 
time of peace. 

Senator Hitchcock. Did your stipulations in cases of construction 
go so far as lifeboats, or relate only to the hull ? 

Admiral Capps. The section I am going over relates entirely to the 
hull. The section in relation to lifeboats was considered by the com- 
■oittee Gen. Uhler was on. 
. Senator Hitchcock. But that did not relate to construction ? 

Admiral Capps. Construction of boats. 

Senator Hitchcock. I am speaking of the vessel — whether any at- 
:tonpt was made to provide that in the construction of vessels the 
;ipapacity of the lifeboats should be made equal to the number of 
[passengers? 

Admiral Capps. No, sir ; not in our committee. In the first place, 
the various subjects were kept as distinct as possible, because we had 
all we could do to take care of our own special province. 

Referring to some of the questions that were directed to Gen. 

er, it appears very much easier than it actually is to provide not 

y deck space, but launching capacity for large numbers of boats. 

ou might get the deck space ; in fact, several ships that I have seen 

ently have the whole of their upper deck covered with boats. In 
e cases they are nested. The ability to launch boats quickly is, of 

urse, one of the most important of boat operations, and the conven- 
tion has specific requirements on this point. 

This is not directly under the construction section of the conven- 

on, but I can not refrain from emphasizing rather strongly the 

>int that the undue weight given to the provision of boats is, in my 

inion, dealing with the least important part of the problem of 
safety at sea as if it were the most important. To begin with, any- 
thing which enhances the safety of the vessel itself under all probable 

DKutions of danger is a positive, permanent increase in safety, no 
latter what the condition of the sea. Whatever is done to increase 
the safety of navigation is a permanent help to the ship; the ice 
patrol, the ocean lane, automatic fog signals, rules of the road, etc., 
*re all of great and permanent assistance. Radiotelegraphy is one 
of the greatest and most important aids for permanent safety of life 
at sea. This convention provides not only for the ordinary installa- 
tion of radiotelegraph apparatus, but also for an emergency installa- 
tion, so that we can reasonably count on one of them being in operation 
even when the vessel has sunk quite low in the water. Everything 
which increases fire protection is also a positive addition to the safety 
of the vessel. All of the foregoing are positive and permanent means 
rf securing or promoting safety or avoiding disaster at sea. The 
javing of life by boats is, however, essentially an emergency eflfort — 
i sort of last resort. I should say — and I am quite sure that I mini- 
nize rather than exaggerate — that once out of four times when there 
oight be occasion to use boats for saving the ship's company they 



230 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

could not be used with any degree of assurance of having more than 
half the passengers survive, due to casualties in lowering, capsizing, 
etc., due to no lack of skill on the part of the crew, but on account oi 
weather conditions over which there was no control. 

A short time ago I crossed the Atlantic. We were 11 days at sea. 
There was not a single one of those 11 days when it would have been 
at all safe to have launched a boat. The captain would not have put 
a boat over to save anybody. It would have been practically impos- 
sible. Passengers complained that we were only making 200 knots a 
day. We ought to have been thankful to have a captain who was 
sensible enough not to try to make more than 200 knots a day. 

Senator Hitchcock. Has not the introduction of wireless teleg- 
raphy ^eatly increased the hope of salvation by boats? 

Admiral Capps. Undoubtedly it has. I do not decry boats at aU. 
I am simply trying to put them in their true perspective. You have 
various aids to safety, more important aids, which come ahead of 
the boats, ' 

The Acting Chairman. Will you suspend just a few moments 
while the Senators go in to vot6? I hope all members of the com- 
mittee will return immediately after this vote is taken and hear the 
conclusion of the admiral's presentation. 

(Thereupon the committee took a recess of 10 minutes.) 

RECESS. 

» 
At the expiration of the recess the committee resumed its session. 

CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL WASHINGTON L 

CAPPS. 

Admiral Capps. I was just about to say that I do not wish to 
minimize the importance of boats, but that I did wish to try to place 
in their true perspective the relative importance of the ship itself, the 
means of securing safety of navigation, the means of obtaining succor, 
and then the means of leaving the ship in the last extremity. 

It is not necessary for me to touch upon the questions of the boats 
the manning of the boats, and so forth, as they have already been 
fully dealt with by my colleagues. I do not claim to be a sailorman in 
these days. But I was trained at the Naval Academy ; have made two 
cruises in sailing ships; have crossed the ocean fourteen times and 
have knowledge of what happens at sea in bad weather, and I wish 
to state very positively that I would not have attached my signature 
to this convention if I had not firmly believed that the items on 
which we did not have our way were of minor consequence as com- 
pared with the good work which was accomplished by the convention. 

There are matters in which there might be differences of opinion— 
perfectly honest differences of opinion — ^but I feel perfectly sure that 
the overwhelming majority — in fact, all of those who signed that con- 
vention — signed it in the firm belief that they were putting their 
names to a document which would greatly increase the safety of those 
who travel by sea. 

There is one other most important item — in fact, two — which were 
taken care of. That is, the continuance of investigation to develop 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 231 

Btill higher standards in the future and the interchange of all such 
information; also very complete, general indications of the char- 
acter of the inspection which would take place, not only when the 
vessel was being built, but also after the vessel was built; that is, 
the annual inspections. The details of those inspections must neces- 
sarily be left to the administration of the countries involved, but 
they are obligated by this convention to interchange all of their 
regulations in order that each country may be fully advised as to what 
the other country is doing. 

My colleague, Mr. Ferguson, who took such a splendid part in the 

conference, was a member of the subcommittee on opening in bulk- 

rjheads, ship's side, and various structural features, and I will leave to 

Mm such explanation as may seem proper with respect to those items. 

In conclusion I would like to read just the last two paragraphs of 
/he summary of the report : 

It is not clninied that ideals have been nttained; indeed, there is always 
foom for improvement and progress. Bnt a sfood beginning has been made, 
and it is believed that the spirit shown by the representatives of thfe various 
countries participating in the conference affords ample evidence that there will 
follow, through the instrumentalities provided by the convention, still further 
developments in ship construction and arrangement which will increase the 
safety of travel at sea. 

It is well to bear 'in mind, however, that there ran never be absolute safety 
at sea any more thtm there can be complete sec\irity of travel by land. Even 
perfection of material, were such attainable, must be accompanied by vigilance 
of personnel and the exercise of careful and prudent seamanship. In fact, 
iv^e may accept with( \!t reservjitlon the .Mbsolute accuracy of the following para- 
graph from the summary of the work of the committee on safety of construc- 
tion, as given in the closing address of the president of the conference. 

It is important to point out that, even after the most careful attention to all 
practicable details of design which increase he safety of a vessel at sea, there 
Btill remains the possibility of a serious and even totally destructive accident. 
Therefore it is imperative that those charged with the management of vessels 
should never relax their vigilance on the supposition that any vessel is unslnk- 
able. On the contrary, they should strive to add to the safety provided by the 
vessel itself that very great increase in safety which results from prudent and 
skillful management and navigation. 

I thank you, gentlemen, for your attention. 

STATEMENT OF MR. HOMER L. FERGUSON, GENERAL MANAGER 
OF THE NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK 
COMPANY. 

Mr. Ferguson. Mr. Chairman and^ gentlemen: I was appomted a 

commissioner by the President to this international conference, an 

appointment wholly unsolicited by myself. There were two others 

in the conference who were practical shipbuilders, one being Sir 

Archibald Denny, the head of Denny Bros., of Dumbarton, who, for 

a great many years, have taken the lead in the development of high- 

' grade shipbuilding. We had in my subcommittee practically all 

professional men. This subcommittee dealt with the question of the 

details of construction, the kmd and character of bulkheads, double 

bottoms, water-tight doors ; in fact, with all the practical details that 

Would tend to carry out the rules adopted by the first subcommittee, 

which Admiral Capps had in charge, so that the ship when completed 

fTould represent in her building a real measure of safety and not a 



232 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

theoretical measure of safety, which many merchant ships now do 
represent. 
I I have no hesitation in saying that I do not know of any merchant 
ships flying the flag of the United States that in the work which I 
had to do with would measure up to the requirwnents of this con- 
ference. What was attempted to be done was to really build the ship 
so that she would be safe and not simply say, for instance, that the 
ship shall have a double bottom, but that she shall hare a douMe 
bottom to extend from peak to peak and carried out in such a manner 
as to protect the bilges, a requirement which no Government now 
requires; in fact, our Government has no requirement as to double 
bottoms — a matter of tremendous importance to ships navigating 
rocky coasts where they are liable to get a ripping blow on the 
bottom. 

In our subcommittee we settled everything in a very democratie 
way. The maj o ritY_j:iiled. The division did not follow any particu- 
lar lin^. Usually Great Britain was on our side, and usually France 
and Germany were against us. 

The purpose of the chairman of the subcommittee, who was my 
professor at Glasgow 20 years ago — in fact, most of the theoretical 
shipbuilding I know I learned under him — as was the purpose of the 
other men there, was to secure, I believe, the highest degree of security 
that we could in a practical way. 

I will state that, except for Admiral Capps, I do not think that 
the committee on construction would have made a report as to sub- 
division. The French had their scheme; the Germans theirs, which 
they had practically worked out for about 16 years ; and the English 
theirs, which they thought was the best, but which had not been fully 
worked out. I will say that the Germans, since 1896, have had rules 
for the subdivision of ships and for the building of passenger vessels 
quite in advance of any other country. Admiral Capps, by the exer- 
cise of k great deal of tact, brought about a condition of affairs 
permitting agreement, by splitting the main committee into three 
subcommittees and by determining upon a set of rules which formed 
a basis for the calculaticms. 

One trouble with the subdivision of ships is that not many have 
really ever paid muc^h attention to it before. If the convention did 
not do anything but get all the technical and professional men and 
naval architects to really study this question, it would have accom- 
plished a great deal. 

In order to settle on a basis foi* calculation, Admiral Capps worked 
for a week or two with his committee, and finally they established a 
standard, so that now when anyone tells us his ship is safe and will 
permit the bilging of so many compartments before it will go down 
we know what he means, because we know on what premises he bases 
his statement. Heretofore we have had no rules governing that 
at all, and it is very necessary to assume arbitrary rules. 
\ Large ships are safer than small ships. A long, large ship is safer 
than a small ship because it will stand bilging a greater number of 
compartments than a small ship will, v For instance, if you take a tug- 
boat 100 feet long, and bilge one compartment it will go down if it 
I happens to be the middle one, and as ships get very long, sa.y, up to 
!900 feet, it is comparatively easy to design them so they will stand 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 233 

iigin^ a number of compartments and still float V The larger ships! 
Ming built now, such as the Aquitina^ which I visited at Clydebank 
par Glasgow, exceed the requirements of the convention in regard to 
Ulety ; the Olympic also probably does, but with that vast number of 
bips running from 400 to 600 feet, or 650 feet, which form by far the 
trge majority of ships engaged in the passenger trade, it is a more 
imcult matter to subdivide them and secure as high a degree of 

The most important thing we did, whicli was done directly at the 
Btigation of Admiral Capps, was to fix it so that a man who had a 
dp for a trade requiring only a ship, say, 500 feet long, or 600 feet 
mg, could get a greater measure of safety than required by the con- 
irence by skill and care in designing and could get the benefit of that 
reater measure by having entered on his safety certificate that he 
Bid, although his ship was smaller, secured a degree of safety greater 
3an this conference requires. This requirement is such that no 
^mer would care to build a ship that did not come Up above the 
jighest requirements of the convention. It would not be good busi- 
i^ss. Furthennore, it gives the passenger a chance to elect as to 
whether he travel with a Turkish bath arrangement or an additional 
Milkhead, and I think if passengers had information a great many 
wuld choose vessels where more attention is paid to safety and less 
o luxury. In fact, my opinion is that most people do not appre- 
aiate the tremendous waste of money that is thrown into luxurious 
jlects aboard ship. 

To come to the details. The bulkheads of ships nowadays are built 
3cording to various rules, mostly empirical. We decided in this con- 
mtion fliat the bulkheads should be stronir enough to resist with a 
»asonable margin of safety the flooding of the ship untU it came 
>wn to what we call the margin line. vYe have tested more bulk- 
^ads in this country in warships than have been tested in any other 
wintry, but Great Britain has and is now testing experimental bulk- 
sads with different pressures so as to determine the arrangement and 
lickness of material to make those bulkheads strong enough. That 
^formation is to be sent to all the various countries concerned, in 
rder that all may design bulkheads that really will hold when they 
et their maximum load, due to the pressure of water. 

In regard to double bottoms, the requirements are far in excess of 
ay requirements I know of, except that of Government designed 
nd Government built ships. In fact, warships are almost the only 
hi^ that have ever been calculated to be really safe in case of dis-t 
irter. There, it is a regular part of warship designing to calculate 
^ effect of bilging compartments by torpedoing. To carry out the 
ieaign of merchant ships will require a naval architect and a skilled 
iUn about three weeks to determine upon the subdivision of the ship, 
3ttt after the British have worked out their scheme of subdivision as 
iey are doing, and have sent the information to all the different 
Kwntries, a naval architect can determine on the degree of subdivision 
rf a ship by the use of their curves and data in about three h ours. j|i 
bid I would say that investigation must necessarily be macTe'm af 
irge part by those who have a great many ships of different character i. 
i> work upon. 

I» regard to openings in water-tight bulkheads and doors,, we 
ive adopted requirements which no cowyvIy^ \v^% wci^^ "scsA^^H^Ssk 



234 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

that all doors below the water line and all the machinery spaces shall 
be sliding doors, capable of being operated from a point above the 
flooded water line, so if the ship gets bilged in the engine room or in 
the fireroom a man above the flooded water line, out of reach of the 
water, can close that door. If there are more than five doors in the 
machinery space, which would include vessels above, say about 400 
feet length, then those doors must be operated from the bridge — must 
be closed from the bridge, with sounding bells below to indicate to 
men in compartments that the doors are going to be closed and give _ 
them a chance to get out. Also to cover the safety of the crew of the - 
engine and fire rooms, they must have access independent of the doors; - 
in other words, they must be able to go up and get out and not be held - 
in these various compartments. These doors are all to be tested • 
before they are put in the ship, which is a new requirement. That 
was introduced by the American d elegation. The doors are to be 
operated and inspected Ht ' feea " re^Tan^'*1ffid periodically, and the 
results of those tests entered in a log, and the result of the inspection 
of doors and their condition — ^not only of doors, but of air ports, and 
scuttles, and various openings affecting the integrity of tne water- 
tight compartments. AH these results must be entered In the log. 
That is a requirement which I do not think exists in either the mer- 
chant or in naval practice — as strict a requiremient as that — the point 
being that on board many ships they do change their crews quite fre- 
quently and there are a great many people on these ships who do not 
know their duties as regards safety, and they should be taught their 
duties, and to be taught them they must have drills and must do 
thinffs at regular times. 

In a number of other respects m regard to openmgs m the ves- 
sel's side and the tests of water-tight decks where thev exist, the tests 
of the compartments of the ship in the fore peak and after peak and 
double-bottom compartments and compartments holding liquids, the 
requirements by filling with water up to a certain pressure are fully 
up to the best requirements of the best practice that we know of at the 
present time. "y( 

Senator S:vriTH. I notice you require that all water-tight compart- 
ments, doors and hinge doors, bulkheads, etc., be operated daily? 

Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith. That provision in reference to periodical opera- 
tion and inspection ought to be regarded as a very thorough one, 
ought it not? 

Mr. Ferguson. I think it is one of the most important things we 
have done, because a bulkhead that has holes in it is not a bulkhead 
unless that hole is closed up. What we would like to have done, and 
what I as a naval architect would have liked to have done, but not 
as a shipbuilder, because no one would have my ship, would be to 
have bulkheads solid and have people go over them. That was done 
on the Paris and New York when first built. The bulkheads were 
solid right up to the topmost deck, and the firemen and engineers had 
to climb up over the top of them, but after a few years there was so 
much complaint that they finally put doors in them. 

I do not think I have anything more to say, gentlemen, about this 
work. It is difficult to explain it in just a few minutes, but in regard 
to the main work of the convention I want to say that in general it 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 235 

^|met with my hearty approval. At one time I felt like coming home, 
too, as Mr. Furuseth did, when I felt we were not getting mat de- 
gree of a division to which we were entitled, which we asked for. 
Senator Bukton. That is, you mean in the construction ? 
Mr. Ferguson. In the construction; yes, sir. But after the Ger- 
^Imans had shown us very clearly what we were getting exceeded their 
^^best requirements, and as they were the only people who had anv 
'^f requirements in regard to this subject and had been quite strict, I 
I finally felt, after Admiral Capps got in his good clause, that it was 
I worth while. 

Senator Smith. Do you feel that it was a free and open confer- 
ence? 

Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir; absolutely. There were no marked divi- 
sions. 
Senator Smith. Do you. Admiral Capps ? 
Admiral Capps. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir; there were no political divisions that you 
could recognize at all. We Americans were considered the most 
radical, as was quite natural, because we have the fewest ships, and the 
other people were more conservative. The smaller countries took no 
big lead in the conference, but the Germans, who are most thorough 
and capable people, were generally on the side of the greater measure 
of safety. The British were well advanced, and our position was 
generally with the British and generally a little beyond the British, 
although in one or two cases we did not go as far as they did because 
they were dealing with a design of very large vessels which they had 
in their minds. We had no doubt, at least I had no doubt, but 
if the Senate should ratify this convention that probably legislation 
would follow in regard to our coastwise traffic, and that we ourselvCvS 
would certainly expect to follow in a considerable measure what 
we would require for overseas traffic, and so when you come to the 
vessel of 400 or 450 feet length — that is our specialty — and we knew 
of some things which you can do on a very large ship which you 
can not do on an ordinary coastwise ship and still have a coastwise 
ship left. For instance, cargo is put in a coastwise ship through the 
ports, some of those ports below the low water line. Practically all 
of our coastwise vessels have such ports. The convention does not 
allow air ports in coal bunkers, or in cargo spaces, a condition which 
holds in most of our coastwise ships and, I think, is a very unsafe con- 
dition, but everybody has electric lights now and air ports are unsafe. 
A number of ships have been sunk by someone leaving these ports open 
carelessly. When the cargo is put in a coastwise ship througli the ports 
it is then trucked fore and aft, as probably most of you gentlemen 
are familiar with, and in most of the ships the bulkheads are not car- 
ried up to the topmost deck but stop short of this deck. Those bulk- 
heads should be carried up to the top deck, and I dare say it will soon 
be required. But we have provided openings in these bulkheads, 
closed by specially heavy water-tight doors, which shall be closed and 
sealed before the ship goes to sea, and that fact entered in the ship's 
log ; but for us to say that in the 400-foot ship that you could not have 
any openings in a bulkhead at all until you got to the top deck would 
simply make a passenger and freight ship of the coastwise type im- 
possible. The design does not fit it, but at present we do not allow 



236 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

any of these doors below flood water line; we do not allow bolted 
plates any place below water line. 

In regard to boats and rafts I simply desire to make one state- 
ment. I am not a sailor. I went to the Naval Academy and I went 
to sea for perhaps a year as a midshipman, and my sailorizing has 
been between crossing the ocean about a dozen times and going on a 
cruise three or fouiLtimes a year, but I would say that the im- 
» portance that is attacned to lifeboats has never particularly appealed 
to me. I have felt myself on one of these big ships with boats 60 feet 
above the water, that I hardly have confidence enough in anybody 
1^ to have them lower me and my family down 60 feet to the water, 
and if I did not have to look after someone else and was perfectly 
free to choose safety in my own way on one of those big ships^ I have 
thought, and I know a great many people who are jfeirly familiar 
with the subject who think the same thing — I have thought that I 
would like to get on the topmost point of the ship on a raft, have 
that raft cut loose, and have that raft float off when she went dowa 
I personall}^ think that is the safest thing to do, and I believe some 
on the Titanic did that very thing. 

Senator McCumber. Have you figured out how many tons of water 
V ^ould come over you when you went down ? 

Mr. Ferguson. I do not think anv would. I think she went down 
very quietly. 

Senator McCumber. The Titanic did, but ordinarily I presume it 
^ leaves a hole which fills up rapidly. 

Mr. Ferguson. No, sir; 1 do not think so. There is no evidence 
of a ship creating a whirlpool when she goes down. She goes down 
just as quietly as she moves in the water from one place to another, 
but I would take my chance on that. 

Senator Smith. There was a detached lifeboat which saved about 
20 lives. Col. Gracie and others — a number of those that were saved, 
if you remember. 

Senator McCumber. That would scarcely apply to warships going 
^ down, with their mighty weight? 

Mr. Ferguson. Of course the warships used to carry a full com- 
plement of lifeboats for eveiyone on board. The ships of our Navy 
only carry lifeboats for 25 or 30 per cent on board. 
y Senator McCumber. I notice one of these ships in the maneuver- 
ing, one of the great British ships went down 

Mr. Ferguson. The Victoria'i 
^ Senator McCumber. I understood at that time that they were 
drowned by the immense mountains of water that went over them. 

Mr. Ferguson. Of course her going down was somewhat extraordi- 
nary in that she turned over beiore she went down, and I do not re- 
member whether they claimed there was much suction or not ; but I 
have talked with gentlemen who have seen ships go down. I gathered 
from the Titanic testimony that there was no particular commotion 
in the water. 

Senator Simith. No suction there. I do not know whether there was 
when they buried the battleship Maine or not. 

Admiral Capps. The entire testimony was there was very little 
suction. 



* SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 237 

Senator Smith. I know that the other ships of the line got away 
out a considerable distance in order to be safe when thev buried the 
^*| Mame^ but there was not any suction especially noticeable. 
"I Mr. Ferguson. I do not think there was. I have a picture of her 
**| j^^ gP^S down — ^the last thing — and it does not show any ruffling 
of the water. I think, too, that a great many of us, had we been on 
the Titamc^ would have been perfectly willing to stay on board. 1 
have no doubt that most people thought she was perfectly safe and, 
personally, I think the ship is quite the safest — ^that to stay by the^ 
ship is quite the safest thing to do under ordinary circumstances. Ij 
she does not go down you are there ; and if she does go down, if you are 
on a raft you will float off. In fact, some very well-known architects 
have advised designing the upper works of the ship so it will all float 
off, and I am not prepared to say that is at all a far-fetched idea. 

One of the most serious things about a ship gouig down, and the 
thing we tried to guard against very carefully in our committee, is 
if the ship tips over to one side or the other, that creates the most 
dangerous condition in regard to launching boats or anything else. 
It has been argued that if the Titanic had had longitudinal subdi- 
visions, such as the Olyinpic has now, she would not have gone down. 
Well, she might have turned over. 

On German ships, and British ships, too, they have longitudinal 
subdivisions, and they informed us that their instructions in case of 
collision were not to close the doors, because if you get water in one 
side of these big ships and have not got it in the other they are liable 
to turn over, and if they are going down it is better to go down 
straight. If the Titanic had turned over when she went down they 
would not have had a chance to save anyone very much. As it is, 
the life saving is limited to the amount of boat capacity had on 
board. The question of longitudinal subdivisions we had to leave 
for further investigation. 

I went to London prepared to fight for double bottoms carried well 
up the sides, but when I talked to people who knew more about double 
bottoms that I do, iand people who had worked over this thing for 
years, like Sir John Biles, we were not at all convinced it was not 
a bad thing. The Germans felt it was a bad thing. The French 
and ourselves felt it might be a good thing, but we were not 
sure, so we did the only honest thing we could do ; said we would all 
iuvestigate it, confer with each other again, and if we saw fit for the 
nations to have another conference in 1920 we would do something 
to cover that particular point, and we had to do that with a number 
of things because we just i>lainly did not know. There are a great 
many things which shipbuilders and designers do not know about 
ships. This is a comparatively new subject, and it involves so much 
detailed work that no one has felt compelled to do it before it was 
forced on us by the Titanic disaster. 

I will say, in summing up what I think of the conference, that I 
think the adoption of this conference on passenger shim, which 
applies to interoceanic trade will increase the safety of life enor- 
mously, and I have not any doubt but that with the recent introduc- 
tion of wireless and the building of ships under these rules and flie 
operation of ships under these rmes that seagoing will be— say, 40 or 
60 per cent safer than it was 10 years ago. Wireless is the greatest 



238 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

invention, of course, of them all, and it has robbed the sea of its one 
terror, the great terror of isolation, in that you are always in touch 
on the North Atlantic with wireless, and that I think makes seagoing 
rather pleasant nowadays when you are talking to other vess^s aS 
day long and are in ready reach of other vessels; the requirement 
that you must ^ve heed to the call and must go to the ship in dis- 
tress, I think, IS a most important requirement and a big step in 
advance of anything we have had heretofore. 

Senator Burton. Have you given attention, Mr. Ferguson, to this 
matter of lifeboat hands? 

Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir ; I am very much interested in it. I was 
not on the committee, but I took part in the commissioners' delibera- 
tions on that. 

Senator Burton. What do you say on that subject? 

Mr. Ferguson. The conclusions of the conference meet with my 
approval on that subject, sir. I had not intended to touch on that, 
because it is not peculiarly within my province, but I feel that it 
would be a mistake to limit boat hands to any one department of a, 
ship. I think that, judging from my own experience in crossing with 
the ships with my family, that I had rather trust a good many of the 
stewards whom I have seen about the ship than trust the deck hands. 
Personally, I think they are a more intelligent lot of people, and I 
think when you come to an emergency that intelligence counts a great 
deal. Training has been emphasized; I mean just merely intelli- 
gence. The stewards aboard ship are, many of them, ex-sailors. 
Coming back the two stewards that waited at our table were both 
big, brawny sailors, with tattoo marks on them, and they had 
taken stewarding because there was more money in it ; and it is very 
much the^ame way down in the fireroom and in the engine rooms, in 
my judgment. I do not believe that you will ever develop men on 
the deck of ships who will compare with the old-time seaman, and I 
believe, personally, that the reason for not doing that is fundamental. 
You can not develop men unless they have got the kind of duties 
that tend to develop men, and men in any particular calling are 
very much influenced by the character of job they have, and I do not 
think you will every develop any real able-bodied seamen scrubbing 
decks and painting and doing the work that the seamen and the 
deck hands, as they are called to-day, do. I just do not think they 
are as intelligent a class of men as the stewards and firemen. As to 
the coal passers, they are different, and not as intelligent as the fire- 
men. That is my opinion of the sailors. I had not intended to say 
so, until the Senator asked me, but that is what I really think, and 
that is why I think you never will, under present circumstances and 
conditions, have the seamen we used to have. They do not exist. 
The Navy can not get them any more, and it has to make them, and 
I think all people who operate the ships will have to make the kind 
of men they want for particular duties. 

Senator Smith. There are no more in the world, and we do not 
grow them? 

Mr. Ferguson. The Germans claim they have them, I think; they 
claim they have seamen from their enlistment scheme in their naval 
service. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 239 

The Acting Chairman. They have them just in proportion as 
:hey still have the old sail ships? 

Mr. Ferguson. They have men who served an enlistment in the 
navy, but I never heard anyone claim that the German ships were 
safer to travel in than the English ships, and I certainly would not 
consider the French, Italian, or Russian ships safer than the British. 

The Acting Chairman. You associate the passing of the old-time 
sailor with the wooden ships? 

Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir; the old-time sailor, the kind of man Mr. 
Furuseth described, and I dare say the kind of man he was when 
he went to sea. We do not see them any more. We have a few at 
our place. We have riggers we hire when we go on a trial trip, we 
have about six real sailors. We use those men for steering the ship 
on trial trips. We had one man who steered all our ships for 10 
years. It is a job on which a great deal depends. We would not 
think of putting an ordinary sailorman or anyone on that job except 
a man who had been trained in it. We have a boatswain, who is a 
subforeman at our place and who knows about the boats and knows 
about getting boats over and getting them on deck, and for the crew 
we have a few white men, and a number of colored Chesapeake 
Bay oystermen. You take men who know how to handle a boat, 
and who is just as handy as can be with lines, and personally 
I would just as soon go to sea with that man as anyone else, 
because he handles boats in all sorts of water and is just as clever 
at rowing and sculling and everything of that kind as the sailot- 
men we have to-day. I will not say they are as good as the old 
sailormen that used to go to sea at the time I was a boy, but they 
are certainly as good as those we employ nowadays. They do a 
great deal oi our rigging; they are good boatmen and know how to 
handle lines. 

I agree with one thing Mr. Furuseth has contended, that the habit 
of the sea — the habit of the water needs to be upon a man in order 
that he may be ver^r useful about a ship; but I take it that no one 
goes to sea for a living who does not like the sea pretty well. Per- 
sonally, I chose years ago not to do it, but I think men who go to sea 
for 20 years or 30 years and who have their sea legs, know about ships 
in any department of a ship, are bound to become versed in things that 
pertain to the sea. This applies to the stewards or coal passers or 
anyone else. The steward I had on the Lusitania has been going to sea 
for 20 years on that line. He is a great big husky man, and I would 
trust my family with him as quickly as with anyone. At the table 
going over we had a little bit of an undersized steward. He heard 
us talking about boats, so he brought us one day a big silver mug 
and which had an inscription on it : " This silver cup was given to the 
best boat's crew of the Lusitaniay I asked what he was doing 
with that. He said: " We won this last year." I asked him whom 
he won it from. " Why, we won it from the firemen and sailors." 
He was the coxswain of the crack boat's crew on this ship, made up 
entirely of stewards, and they had won this cup the year before, 
ind if they could win it another year, he said, they could keep 
it, and he was just as keen on boats as anyone else. I asked him what 
the test was. He said that it consisted of getting their boat lowered, 
rowing 2 miles around buoys and coming back, dismantling the boat, 



240 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

and to have it hoisted up in the davits, and whoever did that fiiat 
got the cup that year. At both ends of the run they inform me thej 
get out in their boats, these men, rowing their boats around th% 
harbor, and to my amazement these men were just as much interesteifi 
and proud of the cup as any sailorman or anyone else. If I werJ 
runmng a ship I would think it very foolish to consider that a mn ' 
of that kind would not be a ffood man in case of disaster. 

The Acting Chairman. Are there any questions, gentlemen? 
/ Senator M cCumber. I want to make just one suggestion here, 
Everyone recognizes how everlastingly busy we are, and I ha^ 
thought that if each one of these witnesses would make a short, clear- 
cut, concise statement showing the present conditions and practicei : 
and rules, then wherein changed by the convention; whether thoss 
changes are improvements or otherwise, and wherein they are more 
valuable or less valuable than the present American laws or rules, 
and each one to present his own case in the manner in which he had 
charge at the time he was in the convention, and which would be 
an epitomization in order of the testimony he has given 'here, it 
would help us on the floor a great deal. And, of course, what I 
say I suggest to all of these witnesses, both those for and against, ao t 
that each one could present it and have it printed as a part of hial 
testimony. 

The Acting Chairman. Have that supplemental to the testimony 
itself? 

Senator McCdmber. Yes. 

Mr. Alexander. If you will pardon me, I will suggest that the] 
members of our delegation had prepared, and there is embodied in a j 
statement made by me to the President over my signature, all those 
matters ; and it will not take more than an hour to read it and I 
can not imagine how you could get it more comprehensive. 

Senator McCumber. I had not read that. My suggestion was to 
epitomize those things. 

Mr. Alexander. ^^^ wanted them in shape so that the President- 
could understand them and appreciate whether it was a matter of 
importance, and I think it will meet just what you have in mind. 
^ Senator McCumber. Possibly you have it here. 

Mr. Alexander. Capt. BuUard is here and I should like to have 
him speak with reference to the manning of lifeboats and the wire- 
less. He has charge of all wiring of the Navy. We do not want to 
trespass on your time. 

The Acting Chairman. Let us hear him. 

Mr. Alexander. It will not take to exceed 10 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CAPT. WILLIAM H. G. BTIILAED, UNITED STATB 
NAVY, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE NAVAL EADIO SEEVHJE. 

Capt. BuLLARD. I do not know that I can say much on the subject 
in addition to what has been said by the members who have preceded 
me. It just so happened that it came my waj^ to serve on two com- 
mittees of this conierence, both, it might be said, in a junior capacity. 
I served on the committee on radiotelegraphy, and the fact that I 
occupy the position of superintendent of the naval wireless service 
probahly explains the reason w\vy \ ^«i^ «i^o\TA«iL\s^ ^<i^x^%Ks^\fc 
^s a commissioner. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 241 

Mr. Chamberlain, who has already occupied the stand as a witness, 
was and is now charged with the operation of the civil laws relating 
to the subject. In this conference Government vessels were not con- 
sidered, and consequently he was the one to take the leading part 
on this subject, and I was a member of this committee as more or 
less of a technical adviser. I also served on the committee of life- 
saving appliances, being one, I think, besides Mr. Chamberlain and 
our chairman, who served on more than one committee, and with me 
was associated, or rather I was associated, with Gen. Uhler and Mr. 
Furuseth until the time Mr. Furuseth left^ and I was always, as I 
say, the second or third member of the committee, and I feel I can 
add little to what those who have preceded me have said, but I 
should like to voice my approval of the general action of our delega- 
tion. 

I have served in the Navy nearly 32 years. I have been nearly 17 
years at sea, and I feel that I know the sea somewhat and its vary- 
ing moods, and I know the sailorman from the Navy point of view. 
I know the sailorman from another point of view from the fact that 
I served three of those years in our coast survey, surveying the coast 
on the Atlantic side along Nantucket and Martnas Vineyard in the 
winter time, in November, where we all worked in open boats, both 
men and officers. Also I served on the west coast of the United 
States, off the coast of Washington andi Oregon utider similar 
conditions. The crew of these ships were not men of the Navy, 
though forming part of their complement, and I speak of them in 
distinction to the regular naval service. So I feel I have quite 
a speaking acquaintance with the ordinary sailorman, although 
deep-sea sailors. I have heard about able seamen all my life, but I 
have never been able yet to have anyone tell me what they were, but 
I think I could recognize one if I saw him. I make the positive dis- 
tinction betwen an able-bodied seaman as known in these days with 
the man who went out to sea in the old square riggers. They left 
harbor with all boats inboard securely griped, and made the trip to 
India or Asia or China and never had any use for boats^ probably did 
not know where they were. Some were used as boom-boats housed 
inboard, and were used as a protection in bad weather. 

In other words, I am trying to emphasize that they made those 
long sea trips and rarely or never had occasion to use a boat, and 
the only time they did use a boat was when they went into a harboi' 
and anchored, when the captain would get out the jolly boat to be 
rowed ashore, and such trips were always made in smooth weather, 
both to shore and back. These men were not boatmen. If we can 
get a trained boatman — and I may say here that I was one who 
objected very seriously to the proposition we had in our ovvn dele- 
gation of having a year's service — it makes little difference from 
what class of men they are drawn. I think I was the ori^nal ob^ 
jector to the proposition of having one year's service, and m that 1 
took the ground that if a boat hand was efficient he was efficient, and 
it did not require a year or a year and a day to make him so. How 
he became efficient was not any concern of ours or of the captain of 
the ship as long as he wa3 certified to be efficient. So my propo^^i- 
tion is to get boat hands wherever we can as long as we are provid- 
ing for men to handle the great number of boats on these large 

38444—14 ^16 



242 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Atlantic liners — we are not dealing with cargo vessels under this 
convention. Cargo vessels always carry enough boats and have 
plenty of the old seamen, so-called, on deck to handle them. 

But I believe in specialization. The memorial of American sea- 
men here includes two pages as to the requirements of one of these 
men on a steamer, and in order to meet those requirements he must 
do all kinds of things. He would have to be a jack of all trades : 
if he does all those things, but the sailors as I know them do not 
do all those things. Of course, they do scrubbing and painting and 
necessarily have to rig stages over the side, but such things even a 
man on shore will have to do, as a steeplejack upon a church tower, 
but that does not make him anything else. He is a good painter, 
and he takes his risk along with that. Many of the things men- 
tioned in the memorial are not done by the so-called able seaman, 
but by the special mechanics of the ship, the carpenters, boatswains, 
quartermasters, machinists, oilers, and so on. Tnese men may do a 

feat many of these things aboard ship, but there is nothing there 
see that gives him practice in boats, and an ordinary able-l^odied 
seaman is not necessarily a boatman. ^ 

Someone reminded us this morning that in our naval service we 
are after expert gun pointers. We get them from any class we can 
and the Government is looking for the best it can get, and we say: 
" If you have got good eyesight come along and take the test." We 
do not care who he is. He may be the black boy of the cabin, or the 
boy who takes care of your boots, or he may be an ordinary seaman 
or a quartermaster or anybody, provided he can take the test and 
shoot better than anybody else on the ship. That is how we may be 
able to get good boatmen. Let us go down through the steward's 
department or the fireroom force or anywhere on the ship and say 
" I want some boatmen. Come up and see who is a boatman, and he 
can be made a boatman. You, Bill Jones you can be a boatman if 
you can beat someone else in the training. I think also that these 
boatmen should be given extra compensation. Of course we could 
not go into anything like that in the convention, but I think we 
should have certified lifeboat men provided by the legislation of each 

fovemment. You can say, " Yes, you may become a certified life- 
oat man, and if you are you will be given so much extra compensa- 
tion a month," and I believe we would get boatmen and good ones. 
I think I am perfectly justified in saying enough good lifeboat men 
can be found among the crew of these large trans- Atlantic steamers. 
My proposition to get boatmen from the ordinary crew of the ship 
is to not force these large ships which carry 40 or 50 boats, and 
which would require from 140 to 150 men, 140 to 150 able-bodied sea- 
men to man them to carry those extra men when the services of most 
of them will ordinarily not be required outside of the ordinary deck 
crew necessary to properly man the ship. The others would be roam- 
ing around the deck hunting for something to do when they have 
cleaned up the morning watch or midwatch and scrubbed the decks or 
scrubbed the paintworp. There would be little left for them to do in 
ordinary circumstances except to sit around in the sun and wait for 
this terrible time to come when they might be called upon to lower 
and man the boats. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 243 

The Acting Chairman. You are speaking now simply of the deck? 
Capt. BuLLARD. Of the deck people. In other words, I take it 
:hat was the attitude of the opposition to this convention that they 
require these two theoretically able-bodied seamen for each boat, and 
in the case of these monster ships, that will carry from 40 to 45 boats, 
it means possibly 100 men just waiting for the time of disaster to 
eome and anticipating some trouble before their services will ever be 
used. 

I have no interest in shipbuilding and never expect to have. I 
know few connected with shipbuilding interests, and know few 
owners or anyone else connected with the industry ; but I think it is an 
unjust proposition to put on a shipowner to make him carry around 
a large number of men that might just as well be doing something 
else^ or, as I look at ft, he may get those men from the otner parts of 
his ship when the occasion arises when their services are needed. In 
the meantime they are getting pay for their legitimate duty, and 
possibly may get an extra compensation for complying with the re- 
quirements of being eflScient boat hands. 

The Acting Chairman. Are there any questions, gentlemen? 

Mr. Alexander. I should like to have leave of the committee to in- 
corporate in the record the address of Lord Mersey, as chairman of 
the conference at its conclusion, which sets out in general terms the 
work of the conference. 

The Chairman. There being no objection, that permission will be 
given. 

(The matter refered to is as follows:) 

The Chairman. It is now my duty to move that the draft convention presented 
to us by M. Guemier be accepted by the delegations here assembled on behalf 
of their respective Governments. 

It will not be out of place if in moving this resolution I say a few words in 
relation to the calling together of this conference and in relation to its work. 
^^IThere has of recent years been a steady movement in the direction of making 
^.Ithe safety regulations for ships international, and it may be mentioned that 
ibefore the events which immediately led to the convening of this conference 
'filirrangements had already been made among a number of the principal maritime 
countries for the mutual recognition of the equivalents of their passenger- 
teamer certificates. Then came the terrible loss or the TitaniCj which occurred 
^ April, 1912, and which awakened all nations to the immediata necessity of 
tasing better means than those existing for securing the safety of life at 
*a, more particularly in regard to ocean-going passenger steamers. Much no 
^ubt had been done in the past, but the catastrophe I have just mentioned 
^de it obvious that much more needed to be done. Thereupon the British 
^vemment issued invitations to a number of the great powers to meet together 
^ith the object of devising means by which this greater security could be 
obtained, and of entering into an agreement for the application of those means 
1*0 passenger traffic. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were also invited 
to attend. 
It may be wOrth while if I read an extract from the invitation, for it states 
l^early the object for which the conference was called together. " It would be 
^ object of the conference," said the invitation, " to endeavor to bring about 
Agreement among the participating States with reference to the conditions nec- 
essary to be laid down in the case of passenger steamships, and, with reference 
to other measures in the interests, the safety of maritime traffic. In the event 
<rfsuch agreement being arrived at and being embodied in a convention each 
tignatory State would be responsible for giving legislative and administrative 
effect to the provisions of that convention, and issuing the necessary certificates 
to its national ships which complied with those provisions. The conference 
would further deal with the conditions under which certificates so issued should 
ke accepted as valid by the other signatory States." The powers to which this 



244 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 



*. 



invitation was issued responded quickly tind cheerfully, with the resi 
the conference met on the 12th, November in last year. 

It had become obyious at an early stage that the questions which wou 
to be considered would be numerous and difficult, and accordingly the 
Government, after consultation with some of the larger nations, pre] 
questionnaire, a' document which you have all seen. In this document 
suggested that subcommittees of the conference should be appointed 
with specific matters and to report upon them. 

When the conference met this suggestion was acted upon, with tli 
that five subconmiittees were api)ointed. These committees were to d( 
questions of safety of construction, life-saving appliances, wireless tel( 
of safety of navigation, and the granting of certificates testifying to 
ance with the requirements of the convention. In addition to these 
tees an informal committee was convened by me for the purpose of sett 
rious questions which were of general application and did not naturj 
under any of the headings of the five committees. These committees Die 
were, as you Icnow, comiwsed of men of great knowledge and experiei 
regard to the matters with which they were dealing, and I venture to 
would have been impossible to find anywhere men better fitted for tl 
they were undertaking. Let me here mention the chairmen of these com 
On the safety of construction, Admiral Capps: on the life-saving ap] 
Prof. Sir John Biles: on the srifety of navigation. Sir Norman Hill ; on t 
less telegraphy, Mr. Moggridge ; on the certificates, his excellency Dr. v( 
ner. I do not stop to examine the qualifications of these gentlemen, : 
are known to you, and the admirable work they have severally done is 
proof of their ability. The committees thus formed sat day by day f( 
weeks, considering with the most anxious care the questions put befoi 
with the result that in time they were able to draw up and circulat* 
you reports of the results of their work containing the recommendatioi 
were thought desirable. You have read these documents, but I have 
it worth while to ask some of the chairmen to prepare for my use to-d; 
notes of their reports, and these, if you will allow me, I propose to reac 
The first is the report of Sir Norman Hill on the question of security 
gation, and this is what he says: 

"An international senice is to be established at the cost of the natic 
cipally interested for the purr>oses of ice control, ice observation, and 
struction of derelicts in the North Atlantic, and it is proposed that this 
be i^aced under the control of the Government of the United State 
service will take over and continue the work done by the two vessels e 
by the United States during the ice seasons of 1912 and 1913 in loon 
ice, in determining the limits to the south, east, and west, and keeping 
with it as it moves southward, in order that vessels on the routes may 
informed, by means of wireless messages, of the position of the i( 
service will also continue the ice observation work started last year 
British Government, with the object of ascertaining the set, the veloc 
the variations of the currents, and the manner in which the duration { 
of the ice drift is thereby controlled, with a view to determining be 
opening of each ice season — and therefore before the ice has become i\ 
the fundamental conditions which govern the movements of the ice. 
service will further be entrusted the duty of dealing with dangerous 
on the west side of the North Atlantic to the east of a line drawn fn 
Sable to latitude — and longitude — . The waters to the west of this 
continue to be watched by the United States. To make the servi 
effective the duty is imposed on the masters of all vessels of report in; 
best means at their disposal all dangerous ice and dangerous derelicts i 
on their voyages. To make these recommendations a code has been ] 
to facilitate the reporting from ship to ship and to the land stations, 
distribution of the information obtained over the vessels at sea. The 
prudent seamanship laid down in the judgment of the court of inquir 
Titcmic case has been affirmed internationally, namely, that when i( 
ported on or near the track a ship must proceed during the night at a i 
speed or alter its course so as to go well clear of the danger zone. T 
tice under which the routes across the North Atlantic are fixed by 
tional agreement between the passenger lines is approved, and the Gove 
undertake to impress upon a\\ s\i\\>oyjT\eT^ Wife ^fe"e»\t'aXi\\\t^ ot following 
as possible, those routes. Tlie ettecU\fe \V%\iWw?, ol x^q^x. ^^jr^kss. \». v^^^ 
and the carrying of more signal \am\>» \» m^^^ ^ovK^\:^«sm:^ . fe^\i. VoJ 



^ 1 



■:.L 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 246 

code for urgent and important signals has been adopted. It has not been pos- 
sible to revise the interaational regulations, as many of the States, party to 
those regulations, were not represented at the conference; but the convention 
binds the contracting States to bring about the revision of the regulations on 
t?e points, and reexamination upon other important points is recommended. 
It has not been possible to embody any definite articles in the conventidn 
respecting a number of points affecting the safety of navigation which were 
CMisidered by the committee, but on these points the committee submit for 
adoption by the conference results (resolutions) embodying their views.'* 

The next note that I propose to i-ead to you is that of Admiral Capps on the 
question of safety of construction. 

He says this — 

"In any consideration of the means for securing the greater safety of life 
at sea, the type of vessel itself and the character of its construction are of the 
highest importance. The questions which arise, even in a general consideration 
t «( the subject of safety of construction, are technical and complicated. More- 
'Hi'vcj^i when such solutions as may be practicable have been attained, their ex- 
pression in any suitable form for embodiment in a convention is difficult. The 
committee charged with the consideration of this subject has, however, sub- 
'imtted a report which states definite conclusions, and has embodied them in 
liBguage suitable for incorporation in a convention. These conclusions are 
Km before the conference in the form of a specific request of the convention 
ind the regulations thereto annexed. For the purpose of this chapter of the 
convention vessels have been divided into two classes, namely, new vessels and 
existing vessels. The designation ' new vessel ' is applied to all vessels the 
keel of which is laid after the date on which the convention comes into effect. 
The designation ' existing vessel * is applicable to all others. These designa- 
tions are in all cases subject to such limitations as to size of vessel and character 
if voyage as are Imposed by the specific requirements of the convention. The 
provisions of this chapter are applicable in their entirety to all new vessels. 
For existing vessels the convention provides that existing arrangements shall 
be considered on their merits by the administration of the country to which 
«BLQh vessel belongs with a view to improvements, providing increased safety 
where practicable and reasonable. The most difficult and also the most im- 
portant question considered under construction was that of the subdivision 
hito an adequate number of main water-tight compartments, so that In the event 
cf damage which might destroy the Integrity of one or more of those compart- 
iDBits the ship might, so far as practicable, have sufficient reserve buoyancy to 
remain afioat. 

"The practicable degree of this subdivision Is necessarily dependent upon the 
Biee of the vessel and the service In which she Is employed, and the convention 
provides that the degree of safety should increase in a regular and continuous 
manner with the length of the vessel, and that vessels shall be as efficiently sub- 
divided as Is possible, having regard to the nature of the services for which they 
are Intended. It Is also explicitly stated that the requirements Imposed by 
the convention are the minima. In addition, provision Is made for suitable 
record on the certificate of safety of any vessel whose degree of subdivision ex- 
ceeds the requirements Imposed by the convention, and the conditions under 
Which this record may be made are expressly provided In article 10 of the 
Regulations. It Is quite Impracticable In this summary to do more than make 
the foregoing brief reference to this highly technical subject ; but the requlre- 
iBents as to subdivision may be found In extenso In articles 17 and 18 of the 
^convention and articles &-11 of the Regulations annexed thereto. Among the 
other important subjects under the heading of 'Construction ' which have been 
covered by the articles of this chapter may be mentioned the following : 

" 1. Bulkheads for preventing the spread of fire. 

"2. Suitable means of escape from all watertight compartments. 

"3. General requirements as to the strength of watertight bulkheads and 

decks. 

"4. Reduction to the smallest number practicable of openings In watertight 
bulkheads; also restrictions upon the location, character, and means of closing 
sdch openings. 

** 5. Restrictions as to the character, number, and location of openings In the 
thip'B outer skin, and appliances for closing such openengs. 

" 6. Specific requirements as to the fitting and extent of double bottoms. 

*• 7. Periodical operation and inspection of waterweight doors, scuttles, valves, 
tnd other appliances for closing openings In bulkheads and the hull structure 



246 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

below the bulkhead deck; also compulsory entrance in the official log in rel 
tlon to such drills and inspections. 

"8. Requirements for adequate backing power; also auxiliary steering app 
ratus. 

" 9. Provision for the survey and inspection of both new and existing vesse 
in all matters relating to the hull, boilers, main and auxiliary machinery, an 
equipment. 

" In its report the committee on safety of construction recognize the in 
portance of making further study in certain important subjects whose consii 
eration could not be undertaken or completed at this time ; also the desirabilit 
of exchanging freely all information in regard to safety of construction. Tl 
enforcement of the foregoing recommendations as to future research and e: 
change of information have been fully provided for in article 30 of the coi 
vention. In concluding the summary of this chapter on the safety of constru 
tion, it is important to point out that even after the most careful attention 
all practicable details of design which increases the safety of the vessel at se 
there still remains the possibility of a serious and even totally destructive aci 
dent ; therefore it is imperative that those charged with the management of v( 
sels should never relax their vigilance on the supposition that any vessel is n 
sinkable. On the contrary, they should strive to add to the safety provid 
by the vessel itself that verjr great increase In safety which results from pi 
dent and skillful management and navigation." [Hear, hear.] 

The third note which I have in my hand is the note of Mr. Moggridge 
the question of wireless telegraphy. 

*'A11 merchant vessels," he says, " of the contracting States, when enga^ 
upon international voyages, whether steamers or sailing vessels, and whetl 
they carry passengers or not must be equipped with wireless telegraph appa 
tus if they have on board 50 persons or more, except where the number 
exceptionally and temporarily increased to 50 or more owing to causes beyc 
the master's control. 

*' The contracting States, however, have discretion to make exemptions fr 
the requirements to carry wireless in certain cases, of which the most imp 
tant is that of vessels which in the course of their voyage do not go more th 
150 sea miles from the nearest land. The classification of the vessels requii 
by the convention to be provided with wireless apparatus follows the categor 
contemplated by the Radio-Telegraph Convention. The precise classificati 
is too complex to be summarized, but, broadly speaking, it is that passenj 
steamers are placed in the first category: and other steamers, intended to car 
25 passengers or more in the second category; and a number of other vesa 
required to be fitted with wireless apparatus in the third category. I ne 
hardly say that the owner of any vessel placed in the second or third catego 
can claim that his ship shall be placed in a higher category if he complies wi 
all the requirements. 

"A continuous watch for wireless-telegraphy purposes is to be kept by i 
vessels required to be fitted with wireless apparatus as soon as their Govei 
ments are satisfied that such watch will be useful for the purpose of savi 
life at sen, and meanwhile, subject to a transitional period for fitting wirel( 
installations and obtaining the necessary staff, the following vessels will be 
quired to maintain a continuous watch, in addition, of course, to all vess^ 
placed in the first category — 

"1. Vessels of more than 13 knots and carrying 200 or more passenge 
and which make voyages of more than 500 miles between two consecutive por 

"2. Vessels in the second category during the time they are more than f 
miles from land ; 

"3. Other vessels required to be fitted with wireless apparatus which j 
engaged in the trans-Atlantic trade, or whose voyage takes them more tt 
1,000 miles from land. 

"Vessels placed in the second category but not required to keep continue 
watch, are nevertheless required to keep such watch for at least 7 houn 
day, besides the watch of 10 minutes in each other hour required by the Rac 
Telegraph Convention. Vessels concerned with the fishing and whaling tn 
are not required to keep a continuous watch. The continuous watch may 
kept by certificated operators, or by watchers qualified to receive and unc 
stand signals of distress. The wireless installations must have a range of 
least 100 miles, and an emergency apparatus placed in conditions of the great 
safety possible must be provided \xii\esa t\iei m^iVa. Va&\»\V«A-\oiv la placed in 
highest part of the ship, and in tlie coTid\WoTi« ol ^^^\ft^ ^\<i\:^ ^<5i^^J^^. ^ 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 247 

master of a ship in distress has the right to call to his assistance from amongst 
the vessels which have answered his appeal for help, the vessels which he thinks 
can best render assistance, and the other vessels which have received the call 
may then proceed on their way. A transitional period is provided to enable 
Fireless "apparatus to be fitted and operators to be obtained." 

The fourth, and the last, note with which I have to trouble you is that of 
Sir John Biles on the question of life-saving appliances. 
He says — 

"The convention lays it down that there must be accommodation boats or 
their equivalents for all persons on board. The boats are described as of two 
classes — ^the ordinary boat, or other boats with fixed sides ; the other class is a 
boat having the upper part of the sides collapsible. The second class is ren- 
dered necessary by the considerations of stowage and is only applicable when 
these considerations malte it undesirable to carry boats of the first class. 
Every vessel must be fitted with a minimum number of davits or equivalent 
appliances. It varies in accordance with the length of the ship. Bach of these 
davits must have a lifeboat of class 1 attached to it, and thereafter additional 
lifeboats, which may be either open lifeboats or pontoon lifeboats — a new generic 
term for the collapsible boat of Englehart, or similar types — until either a 
adnimum capacity based on the assumption that the maximum number of boats 
will be placed under each set of davits, or accommodation for 75 per cent of 
the total number of persons on board has been provided. If any remaining 
accommodation is required it may be provided either in further boats or in 
approved pontoon rafts. The pontoon rafts referred to in the convention are 
fte Improved appliances devised by the British boats and davits committee 
which reported in May last year. 

"The convention lays down detailed regulations regarding the construction 
tnd measurements of different kinds of boats and pontoon rafts, their equip- 
3*1 nent, the stowage of boats and rafts, strength of davits, number and construc- 
tion of lifeboats, life buoys, and life jackets. In this connection two new prin- 
ciples are incorporated : 

First, as large a number as possible of boats and rafts must be capable of 
g launched on either side of the ship, so that as few as possible need be 
nnched on the weather side. Second, a surplus of life jackets, in the form 
special life jackets for children, is required. While precise regulations are 
down for the types of life-saving appliances required, provision has been made 
the adoption of other types equally efficient which may receive the sanction 
r^l< individual administrations who will inform the other nations. The conven- 
further lays it down that there must be a minimum number of certificated 
t^peboatmen capable of handling the boats. These men may be of any rating, 
7liad will hold a certificate of competency issued under the authority of the 
Aphninistrations. The carriage of dangerous goods is forbidden, and each ad- 
stration will issue from time to time official warnings as to what goods 
dangerous, either singly or In combination, and will impose regulations as to 
stowage and packing. When necessary for overtaking fire an organized 
of patrols is required. Regulations requiring a supply of water, steam, and 
Id extincteurs make provision for extinguishing fire. Regulations are also 
nded for the organization of the crew for emergencies and for boat and 
drill. All ships are to have an adequate system of lighting so that in an 
rgency the passengers may easily find their way to the exits from the in- 
ior of the ship. In new ships an independent source of lighting must be 

as high as possible, and the boat decks must be well lighted." 

Gentlemen, I have not troubled his excellency Dr. von Koerner to prepare any 

of the work of -the committee of certificates, of which he was the cbair- 

The recommendations of the committee are exceedingly simple. They 

in effect, that the ships of the contracting States which comply with the 

mirements of the convention shall have furnished to them certificates of the 

which shall be accepted by all the States as prima facie evidence of such 

^^pllanee. A form of certificate is annexed to the report which, in addition 

2pi recording compliance with the requirements of the convention, will also 

ble shipowners who have in certain respects done more than comply with 

requirements to have the fact recorded. 

Finally, let me say a word on the work of the informal committee of which 

was myself the chairman. That committee was concerned with what are 

led dispositions generales. It defined the ships to which the convention 

d apply, the leading feature being that ocean-going steamers carying more 



I 



248 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

than 12 passengers should fall within its provisions, but, of course, not iu 
ing steamers engaged in the home trade. It further provided for an i 
change between the Governments of the laws and rules relating to snfei 
life at sea, and for the imposition of penalties in case of neglect to comply 
the provisions of the convention. It also provided for the admission of ou 
States which later on may wish to come under the convention, and it fix 
date — the 31st December, 1914 — by oi* before which the convention must be 
fied by the different States, and a date — the 1st July, 1915 — on which the 
vention is to come into force. 

These summaries of the different reports are necessarily incomplete, but 
Jiave the full texts before you and can refer to them for further details. 
reports themselves were forwarded to the committee of redaction, of v 
id, Guernier was the chairman. It was M. Guernier's task to model them 
the form of the convention now before you. It is impossible to spenk 
highly of the ability and skill which M. Guernier, greatly assisted by his 
league, M. Boris, brought to bear on this task [applausel, and the whole 
ference is deeply indebted to him for the work he has done, [Hear, hear!] 

I have now finished the observations I desire to make, but I may say a 
more words in conclusion. Our work will no doubt be criticized. So far n 
criticism originates with interested parties we can ignore it; and so far 
originates with disinterested partes our answer must be that we have doiK 
best; that we have done it with anxious care and, as we believe, in the 
interests of those who travel by sea. [Hear, hearll 

Gentlemen, you have been engaged in perfecting a great work, which 
firmly convinced will be of lasting benefit to mankind. Much more than 
however, you have, perhaps unconsciously, but nevertheless most surely, b; 
spirit of courtesy and conciliation which has been displayed throughout 
deliberations, contributed greatly to the increase of mutual respect and < 
dence among the nations and thereby to the peace and happiness of the \ 
at large. [Loud applause.] 

Senator Smith. You spoke about incorporating something into 
record ? 

Mr. Alexander. Yes, sir ; I should also like to incorporate a s 
ment from the Shipping World of February 25, 1914, giving a s 
tnent of Mr. John Burns, who is now president of the board of tr 
having succeeded Mr. Sidney Buxton, with reference to the 
hands and efficient crews of vessels. 

[Shipping World, Feb. 26, 1914— Shipping in Parliament.] 

Mr. Wilkle asked whether, on the question of safety of life at sea, eonsh 
tion had been given to the necessity for providing that the men shippe 
able seamen should be experienced. Mr. Burns replied that one of the art 
of the convention — No. 15— laid down that foreign-going passenger stea 
taust be sufficiently and efficiently manned from the point of view of safei 
life at sea. The convention also laid it down that passenger steamships w 
its scope must carry qualified men sufficient in number, according to a 
Scribed scale, to man and handle all the lifeboats and life rafts carried. 1 
members of the crew must possess a Government certificate of efficiency, 
the question of the standard to be required from candidates for such cc 
cates is now under consideration of the board of trade. 

The Acting Chairman. Are there any further requests ? 
Mr. Alexander. That is all from us. 

(Thereupon, at 6.30 p. m., Saturday, Apr. 4, 1914, the comm 
adjourned to Wednesday, Apr. 8, 1914, at 11 o'clock a. m.) 



APPENDIX. 



249 



[Memorandum.] 

APPENDIX A. 

International Conpbbbncb on Safety op Life at Sea. 
[Pages referred to are the pages of Senate document "Executive B."J 

"The Safety Certificates issued under the authority of a Contracting State shall 
be accepted by the Governments of the other Contractiiw: States for all purposes 
covered by this Convention. It shall be regarded by the Governments of tne other 
Contracting States as having the same force as the certificates issued by them to 
heir own vessels." (Art. 60, p. 24.) 

This, of course, does not prevent inspections of foreign vessels in American har- 
)ors, because our Inspection Service may reinspect a vessel if it shall be deemed 
lecessary, but: 

"Every vessel holding a Safety Certificate issued by the oflicers of the Contracting 
itate to which it belongs, or by persons duly authorized by that State, is subiect 
a the ports of the other Contracting States to control by oflicers duly authorized by 
heir Governments in so far as this control is directed toward verifying that there is 
n board a valid Safety Certificate, and^ if necessary, that the conditions of the ves- 
el's seaworthiness correspond substantially with the particulars of that certificate; 
hat is to say, so that the vessel can proceed to sea wifliout danger to the passengers 
.nd crew.'* (Art. 61, p. 24.) 

So that there can be no inspection beyond ascertaining the validity of the certifi- 
ate, unless there is an apparent unseaworthiness. The additional permission to 
nspect is only given *4f necessary" and has only reference to seaworthiness of the 
lull and machinery. This, I think, is plain because: 

"The Safety Certificate shall be issued either by the officers of the State to which 
he vessel belongs, or by any other person duly authorized by that State. In either 
iase the State to which the vessel belongs assumes the full responsibility for the certi- 
icate." (Art. 57, 3d par., p. 23.) 

Any attempt at inspeccion beyond ascertaining that the vessel has a valid Safety 
Certificate would be to question the good faith of the State issuing the same, unless 
the vessel has suffered some damage which has made her visibly unseaworthy. In 
any case the inspection will only be into the condition of her hull, machinery, wireless 
equipment, wireless operators, her boats and other life-saving equipments, but will 
not include the question of manning beyond ascertaining tiiat she in fact has on 
board the minimum number of * * certificated lifeboat men " provided by Article XLVII, 
page 63. The manning of the vessel herself is left to the discretion of the Govern- 
ment to which the vessel belongs by the following: 

"The Governments of the Higli Contracting Parties undertake to maintain, or, if it 
is necessary, to adopt, measures for the purpose of insuring that, from tlie point of 
view of safety of life at sea, the vessels defined in article 2 shall be sufficiently and 
efficiently maimed." (Art. 15, p. 11.) 

The State to which the vessel beloi^ will determine for itself the sufficiency and 
efficiency of the crew, and each of the other contracting States agree to- respect the 
Ptaiidard thus set. Each nation may set a higher standard for itself, but in so doing 
it exposes itself to have its own vessel driven off the ocean by competition. The 
standard will be the lowest standard, which is a crew of orientals snipped in the 
Orient at the wages niling in those places. For the result of such arrangements see 
"Equalizing the cost of operation," page 114. The men thus shipped will be com- 
pelled to remain on board of their vessels in ports of the United States because: 

"The treaties, conventions, and arrangements concluded prior to this Convention 
shall continue to have full and complete effect, as regards — 

"(1) Vessels excepted from tho Convention. 

"(2) Vessels to which it applies, in respect of subjects for which the Convention lias 
^ot expressly provided. 

"It IS understood that, the subject of this Convention being safety of life at sea, 
9ue8tion8 relating to the well-being and health of passengers, and in particular of 
immigrants, as well as other matters relative to their transport, continues subject 
to the legislation of the different States." (Art. 68, p. 26.) 

251 



252 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

It seems that if this article was not in this Convention existing treaties, conventioDs, 
and arrangements would not be effected except in so far as they might be antagonistic 
to this Convention. The article being here and using the language that it does, it 
seems that the treaties, conventions, and arrangements become a part of this Con- 
vention. It seems that the final paja^ph was inserted to safeguard the power to 
deal with the safety of passengers and immigrants to the different States. 

Keeping in view that the expression "different States" may be subject to con- 
struction which would make it mean the State to which the vessel belongs, the State 
of which the immi^ppants are citizens or subjects, the State from which the passengers 
or immigrants begin their voyage, or the State to which tney are bound, it appears 
that this expression gives opportunity for future complications, especially when it is 
remembered that the manning and inspection is imder the control of the State to which 
the vessel belongs. Safety at sea depending, by common consent, upon the human 
element in the main, one contracting State iiSiving entered into this treaty and sent a 
vessel to sea in accordance with article 57, page 23, and article 15, page 11, it may well 
be claimed that to permit the crew to be broken up and team work destroyed oy re- 
pealing the treaties which provide for the arrest, detention, and surrender of deserting 
seamen is to destroy one of the chief elements of safety and therefore forbidden b^r thia 
Convention, jaot only in article 68, page 26, but by the purpose of the Convention itself 
as written. The fact that the crew may have been but one week on flie vessel and 
may never haV^e been drilled together will not prevent such claims from being made. 

On the question of safety appliances note the following: 

"Each boat must be of sufficient strength to enable it to be safely lowered into the 
water when loaded with its full complement of persons and equipment." (Art. 42, 
p. 19.) 

''The davits shall be of such strength th^t the boats can be lowered witii their full 
complement of persons and equipment, the vessel being assumed to have a list of 15 
degrees. The davits must be fitted with a gear of sufficient power to insure that the 
boat can be turned out against tne maximum list under which the lowering of the boats 
is possible on the vesseiin question." (Art. 49, p. 21.) 

In the regulations, part of and equal to the Convention, it is ordained that — 

''The provisions of articles 42 and 49 of the Convention, respecting the launching 
of boats, shall not be applicable to existing vessels." (Sec. (d). Art. XLVI, p. 63.) 

Existing vessels are vessels whose keels were laid prior to January 1, 1915, see 
article 39, page 19, so that the vessels now built or building may continue tiirough- 
out their existence of 20 or more years to carry davits not strong enough to be of use in 
the most critical tiioment and boats not strong enough to place the number of women 
and children permitted in them before lowefing them into the sea; that is to say, with, 
the most unsafe vessels goes the most unsafe boats and davits, when a comparative 
slight cost might furnish standard boats and davits. 

in Article XLII, pa^e 60, it id ordained that there must be boats for 75 per cent of 
the persons on board; me otiiet 25 per cent will be provided for on rafts. Senate 136, 
the La FoUette seamen's bill, provides boats for all persons on board, section 12. 

Article XLVII, page 63, provides that if the boat or raft carries less than 61 persons 
it shall have a minimum number of three certificated lifeboat men; if the numbef is 
between 61 and 85 there shall be four such certificated lifeboat men. A lifeboat 
man is described as one who "has been trained in all the operations connected with 
launching lifeboats and the use of oars; that he is acq^uainted with the practical 
handling of the boats themselves; and, further, that he is capable of underBtanding 
and answering the orders relative to lifeboat service." 

Under this definition an Atlantic liner may have a lascar or a Chinese crew which 
do not understand the language of the officers of the vessel, receiving all their orders 
through an interpreter, and who have had sufficient drill to lower an empty boat into 
smooth water and pull it around for a short period of time in the dock basin or harbor, i 
It is a fact well recognized that with the Chinese, in case of shipwreck, the rule is i 
save the "men first, because they are useful, children second, oecause they m»y i^ 
become useful, women last," if you have the time and the equipment. 

Aside from this the certificated boatmen may come from the saloon or the fireroom j 
and need never have had any experience at sea. 

Senate 136, the La FoUette seamen's bill, in section 12 provides that in each boat's i 
crew there shall be at least two able seamen or men of higher rating, the men of "higher a 
rating" being the officers and petty officers. 

As to the comparative value of the able seamen on one hand, and cooks, stewards, i 
waiters, firemen, etc., on the other, for lifeboat work, see page 120, under the title of ■ 
"The able seamen." 

Some of the members of the commission in urging ratification dwelt especially t 
upon the "injustice" that would be done to the shipowner by compelling him to I 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 263 

increaae the number of men C9,rrie4 in the deck department. Referring you to the 
table taken from the Britiah records and filed by me in which it is shown that the 
deck crew of the f^imtania is 66 persons, while her total crew is 822, I deny the injus- 
tice charged and insist that vessels of her type are outrageously undermanned in the 
deck department. The men in the deck department are now compelled to work 12 
hours a day, 7 days a week, while at sea on those vessels. The actual sleep on one 
day is six hours and a half, on the next eight hours and a half, in each case divided 
into three sections. 

I submit that it is not humanly possible that those men can be ip a condition fit 
to prevent accidents in which boats become necessary. If those vessels were suffi- 
ciently manned for the actual safety of the vessel herself she would have two able 
seamen or men of higher rating for each boat. The additional men, 20 at most, that 
would be needed on the Lusitania, are needed for the safe navigation of the vessel, 
^uid the additional cost would be leas than is paid for some of the stateroom suites 
for each trip. Medium-sized vessels would not need any increase in the crew, what 
is needed there is a higher standard of skill. On this subject see "Safety," page 
117; ''Skill," page 118. 

One or two of the commissioners insisted that the standard oi intelligence of the 
sailors is lower than that of the stewards. On this question I just remind you that 
the ^edfi officers of the vessel, and the master himself, who is in complete charge, 
are developed from amongst the able seamen. 

That intelligence and skill of the sailors is deteriorating is not to be denied, and 
this includes the officers as well as the men beifore the mast, and is the cause of the 
incresaing number of disasters and the increasing insurance rate. The purpose of 
the La FoUette seamen's bill is to bring back to the sea tbe men of strength and skill 
needed for safe navigation. 

Respecfully submitted. 

Anpbew FuHuaiiTH. 



APPEiroiX B. 

InTBBNATTONAL COJJFJIRBNCE ON SAFETY 01" LiPB AT 8eA. 

QUESTIONS BEFORE T^E CONFERENCE. 
[Circulated by His Britannic Majesty's Government.] 

1. Object of the Conference. — In the letters of invitation to the Conference, the object 
of the Conference was expressed in the following formula: 

It would be the object of the Conference to endeavour to brin^ about agree- 
ment among the participating: States with reference to the conditions necessary 
for safety to be laid down jn the ca^e of passenger steamdiips, and with reference 
to other measures, in the interests of the safety of maritime passenger traffic In 
the event of such agreement being arrived at and embodied in a Convention, 
each signatory State would be responsible for giving legislative and administra- 
tive effect to the provisions of that Convention^ and issuing the necessary cer- 
tificates to its national ships which complied with those provisions. The Con- 
ference would further deal with the conditions under whicn certificates so issued 
should be accepted as valid by the other signatory States. 

This formula was drawn up with a view to include all the more important questions 
relating to the safety of ocean passenger traffic, and at the same time to secure that the 
discussion of these subjects should be kept within reasonable limits and lead to useful 
apd permanent results. 

The Conference will no doubt be informed by the delegations as to the powers with 
Which they have been entrusted by their respective Governments. 

2. Programme for the Conference. — It was necessary in issuing the invitations for 
th^ Conference to draw up in advance a programme flowing the main questions which 
it was thought could with advantage be discussed. That programme was as follows: 

(i) International Uniformity. — The principles which should govern the reciprocal 
acceptance by each of the Governments represent^ of certificates and standards, 
issued or laid down by the other Governments, relating to safety of life at sea. 

(ii) Safety of Construction. — The principles which should be laid down as regards 
bulkheads and subdivision into watertight compartments, and the question as to what 
principles can be laid down so as to secure tnat vessels shall, as regards hull, ma- 
chinery and equipments, be fit for the service intended. 



' 



■X 



254 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

(iii) Life Saving Appliances. — The principles to be enforced with regard to the life \rl 
saving appliances to be carried, the types of boats and other life saving appliances to f. 
be accepted, and the arrangements for survejdng, stowing, launching and handling 
the boats and other appliances. 

(iv) Safety of Navigation. — The principles to be adopted with regard to the control 
of navigation and safety warnings, including wireless telegraphy, signals, assistance 
to ships in distress, warning as to ice and derelicts, steammip routes, &c. 

The questions included m this programme are set out at greater length below. 

3. Sub-Committees of the Conference. — Many items in the programme of the Confer- 
ence are of a complex and technical character, and the Coi3erence will no doubt 
wish that some of them should be considered by sub-committees. 

It is suggested that sub-committees might be appointed to deal with: 

(1) International Uniformity. 

(2) Safety of construction, with special reference to bulkheads and watertight 
compartments. 

(3) Life Saving Appliances. 

(4) Wireless telegraphy. 

(5) Safety of Navigation. 
Other committees may be required as the work of the Conference proceeds, but if 

the Conference agree that the above five will certainly be required they might be 
appointed at once. 

INTERNATIONAL UNIFORMITY. 

4. Mutual Recognition of Certificates. — ^At present several Governments have made i 
arrangements under which each side accepts certificates issued by the other. It may 
be assumed that the Conference will be able to lay down general principles witn 
regard to the safety of passenger vessels which shall be complied with by the ships 
of the signatory States; it will then be necessary to consider: 

(a) Whether it is possible to establish a system whereby a national certificate of 
survey shall be issuea in each country to national ships which comply with the stand- (z^ 
ards laid down by the Conference; 

(6) Whether a special form should be prescribed by the Conference for the cer- 
tificates to be given by each State to its own nationals; 

(c) Whether the certificates should be valid for a limited period only, and if so, 
what that period should be; 

{d) Whether the possession of valid certificates should be regarded as freeing ships 
from all survey ana inspection in the ports of other signatory States, except in cases 
of evident unseaworthiness or of evident or serious defects; 

{e) What other certificates, if any, should be recognised internationally, and under 
what conditions. 

SAFETY OF CONSTRUCTION. 

/ 5. Bulkheads and Watertight Compartments. — A special study of this question has 
been recently made by some of the Governments concerned. It may therefore be 
desirable that a special sub-committee of the Conference ^ould be appointed to 
examine and compare the results arrived at, with a view to determining: 

(a) whether the study of the question is sufficiently far advanced to enable prin- 
ciples of international, applicability to be laid down in the case of new ocean-going 
passenger steamers, and if so, what those principles should be; 

(6) whether it is desirable and practicable to lay down any general principles with 
regard to existing ocean-going passenger steamers. 

^ 6. Arrangements for Surveying Passenger Steamers. — In view of the differences in | 
the conditions prevailing in different countries, is it possible to secure a uniform sya- 
tern of survey at all ports? If not, will it be sufficient to lay down that the survey 
should be carried out, either by Government surveyors or by surveyors specially 
appointed by the Government for the purpose, so as to secure that in every case the 
Government concerned accepts full responsibility for the efficiency and completeness 
of the survey? 

7. Principles which should govern the Surv&y. — Is it possible or desirable for the 
Conference to lay down detailed rules governing the survey of passengjer steamers in 
all respects; and, if not, can the Conference formulate some general principles which 
should govern the survey of passenger steamers in the different countries as regards 
hull, boilers, machinery and equipments? 

8. Provisions against Breakdown. — It has been suggested that, at least in the case 
oi new and large passenger steamers, it should be compulsory that certain portions of 
the machinery and of the equipments Bh.o\x\d \>^ Va. ^\3Lj\\^^\ft ^t ydl \:^q ot. Ys^OTft eec- 

tions capable of working independeutVy , eo «ja \ft -^xovv^fe ^'^^xia\.\st^aJ«A<2r^rQ.. ^A"^ 



i 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 255 

a question which should be left tx) the different administrations, or should it be dealt 
with by the Conference; and, if the latter, can the Conference formulate some general 
nilee or principles on the matter? 

LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES. 

9. Boats for all. — Does the Conference endorse the principle, which has already 
been adopted by some Governments, that in future all foreign-going passeneer steamers 
should be required to provide accommodation in lifeboats or their equivalents for all 
persons on board? 

If this ]^rinciple is accepted, can rules of a general character be formulated, so that 
the principle can be carried out in a reasonably uniform maimer in the different 
countries? The following points, amongst others, appear to require consideration: 
{a) The types of boats to be accepted as lifeboats. 
[b) The form and capacity of the boats. 

The space to be provided for each person. 

The number of sets of davits or other equivalent appliances which should be 
provided, 
(e) The stowage and arrangement of the boats.' 
The equipment of the boats. 
Life rafts. 
) Lifebuoys and life-jackets. 

10. Manning of Boats. — It is recognised that the increased number of boats will be 
of Uttle avail unless there is an adequate number of efficient boat hands for lowering 
and handling them. The boats may be of different types and different sizes. Is the 
Conference prepared to lay down general principles: 

(a) as to the number of efficient boat hands to be carried on different ships; 
(6) as to the definition of the term "efficient boat hands"? 

11. Manning of Ships. — Is the Conference prepared to lay down any principles as to 
the manning of passenger ships from the point of view of safety at sea in addition to the 
provision for the manning of the boats, or is this a matter to be left to be dealt with by 
the internal legislation of the various States? 

12. Boat Drill. — The provision of boats and of men to man them leads to the ques- 
tion of boat drill. Can the Conference lay down general principles as to 

(a) what boat drill should consist of; 

(b) how often it should be practised? 

13. Organisation of the Crew for dealing with an emergency. — To carry out boat drill 
properly, and to secure that passengers shall be safely transferred to the boats in case 
of an emergency, it is essential that there should be a proper organisation of the crew, 
arranged beforenand, so that each member of the crew mav know exactly what he has to 
do in case of an emergency. Is the Conference prepared to determine — 

(a) what the main features of such an organisation should be; 

(6) whether details of such an organisation should be prescribed by Government 

authorities, or whether it should be left to the shipowners and masters to devise an 

f J oiganisation for each particular ship, on condition that the Government authority 

is satisfied that a satisfactory organisation has been prepared for each ship, and that 

i t embraces certain well-defined principles? 

(c) whether the organisation oi the crew should include provisions for fire drill 
and bulkhead drill. 

14. Fire Extinguishing Appliances. — A special study of this subject has recently - 
been made in some of the countries concerned, and it will be for the Conference to 
determine whether general principles can be laid down which can be applied uni- 
formly to ships of different nationalities so as to ensure that all ocean-going passenger 
steamers shall [have at least a minimum equipment for extinguishing fire on board] 
in ^leir construction and equipment^ provide to the fullest extent practicable for the pre- I 
•vention, detection ^ and extinguishment of fire on board.^ ' 

• 15. Wireless Telegraphy. — Laws have already been made in some coim tries requir- 
ing certain classes of sMps to be fitted with wireless telegraphy apparatus for the 
purpose of safety of life, and similar legislation is contemplated in other coimtries. 
The question is one on which it is especially desirable that there should be inter- 
national uniformity, and the Conference may oe able to lay down general principles — 

(a) as to the ships which should be required to be fitted with wireless telegraphy 
apparatus, and the classes of voyages, if any, which should be exempt from the inter- 
national obligations; 

(6) as to the classification of those ships for the purpose of the Radio-telegraphic 
Convention, 1912; 

1 Words in brackets stricken out and those in italics substituted on motion of the United States. 






li 



256 aAj?BTT OS ujfiif^ AT m4- 

(p) as to the nuage ot the 9Ppair^t\i9 to be 4tted. 

16. AsaifiUmce tQ Ship9 iv, th^treu: 

(a) Is the Conference prei)ared to lay down geneial principles a^ tp the obligation 
which rests on a ship receiving a wireless distress signal to proceed to the assistance 
of the vessel in distress? 

(6) Can arrangements of a general nature be usefully made in advance for prevent- 
^Ig vessels whidi receive a distress signal deviating unnecessarily or u^lessly from 
their course, e. g,, by allowing the vessel in distress to determine which of the other 
vessels shall come to her assistance? 

SA?STT OF NAVIGATION. 

\T. DereUcU. — Special steps are taken by the United States Grovemment for the 
destruction of derelicts, and^ measures are taken by other Governments for the same 
purpose. Measures are also taken, or contemplated, in diiSerent countries for obtain- 
ing information as to derelicts, and for conveying this information to masters of ships. 
Is the Conference prepared to lay down any general principl< 



(a) with regard to the destruction of derehcts; 



6) with regard to reporting derelicts and conveying the information so reported 
to masters of ships; 
(c) with regard to the establishment of an international organisation for this purpose? 

18. Ice Observation. — The British Government sent out a special vessel in the early 
part of this year for the purpose of observing the movements of ice to the north of the 
Atlantic rpiitos. The broad resiUts of this expedition will be laid before the Con- 
ference, with a view to its being determined — 

(a) whether it is desirable in the interests of safety of navigation that this reeeturch 
work should be continued; 

(6) if the answer to the above question is in the affirppiatiye, whether arrangements 
should be made for the other Governments concerned to take part in this work. 

19. Ice Paixol. — The United States Government have in the past season 9ent out two 
special vessels to patrol the routes and report ice. Js the Comerence in a position to 
aetermine : 

(a) whether a system of special Government ice patrol is of such assistance to navi- 
gation that it is desirable that it should be carried 09 in future years; 

(6) if the answer to the above q^uestion is in the affirmative, can arrangements be 
suggested by which the responsibihty for this work can be shared by the other Govern- 
ments concerned? 

20. Reporting Ice. — It is th^ custom of the sea for vessels which meet with dangerous 
ice to report it by wireless telegraphy to ships in their neighborhood, and this custom 
was well exemplified in the case of the s.s. "Titanic." 

Measures are also taken in dii^erent countries for collecting and collating information 
as to ice, and for issuing this information for the guidance of mariners. It is for the 
Conference to detennine — 

(a) whether it is necessary to alter, or extend, or render compulsory, the present 
practice by which dangerous ice is reported at once to ships in the neighbourhjood; 

(b) wheuier any alteration is necessary in the present system of coUecting and 
collating information aboiit ice; 

(c) whether arrangements should be made for securing that information in the 
possession of one administration will be imparted to the other adminietratiops con- 
cerned. 

21. Weather Signals. — Measures are taken by some Governments for collecting 
information from ships at sea as to weather, and for ^ving information to ships at 
sea with regard to weather. It is a question for consideration whether the subjoc^ 
is one which should be dealt with by this Conference; and, if so, whether it is possi- 
ble to suggest any alterations in the present systems with a view to their co-ordination. 

22. Ocean Routes. — The principal steamship lines in the North Atlantic trade have> 
for several years, agreed that their ships should follow definite routes both on the 
eastward and on the westward passage. It is for consideration — 

(a) whether the responsibility for selecting and following these routes should, w»t 
present, be left to the steamship companies concerned; 

(b) whether steps should be taken by Government action to secure that the steaoi' 
ship lines which are at present outside the agreement shall be compelled to follow 
the routes; 

(c) whether the Governments concerned, after consultation amongst themselves 
should prescribe the routes to be followed and undertake the responsibility of seeing 
that these routes are adhered to. 



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA, 257 

23. Wireless Distress Signal. — It has been suggested that the wireless distress signal 
should be added to the list of signals of distress contained in Article 31 of the Itegula- 
tions for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Does the Conference approve of this proposal? 

24. Speed in the neighbourhood of Ice. — ^It has been suggested that Article 16 of the 
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea should be amended so as to make it obliga- 
tory on all ^ips to reduce speed when in the neighbourhood of ice. It is for the 
Conference to detemine: 

(a) Whether a fresh enactment on this subject is necessary; 

(6) Whether Article 16 of these Regulations is the right place for inserting auch a 
provision. 

25. Reform of the International Collision Regulations. — ^Various suggestions have 
been made for amending certain of the Articles of the Regulations for Preventing 
Collisions at Sea other than those referred to above. It will be for the Conference to 
determine how far and in what manner it will deal with any or all of the proposed 
amendments. 

26. Private Signals. — Private recognition signals are used by steamships of differ- 
ent lines, and some of those at present in use are liable to be mistaken for signals of 
distress. Is the Conference prepared to lay down — 

(a) that no such private signals shall be allowed in futiu*e: 

(6) that the nimiber of such signals as exist at present should \\e reduced as speedily 
as possible? 

27. Submarine Bells. — It has been suggested that all light vessels on important 
outside stations should be equipped with submarine bells, and that all ocean-going 
vessels should be fitted with means for detecting submarine beU signals. 

It will be for the Conference to determine — 

(a) whether this invention can now be regarded as a reliable and valuable aid to 
navigation; 

(6) if the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, what classes of light 
vessels should be fitted with submarine bells, and what classes of ships should be 
fitted with receiving apparatus. 

28. Electric Light. — Should electric lighting be made compulsory, and should any 
principles be laid down as to the portions of the ship which should be so lighted? 

29. Searchlights. — Should it be made compulsory that passenger steamers should be 
fitted with searchlights? 

30. Binoculars. — Should it be made compulsory that binoculars should be provided 
for the use of look-out men? 

31. Morse Signal Lamps. — Should the provision of Morse Signal Lamps for signalling 
at night be made compulsory? 

Transitional Period. — It is a generally accepted principle that, when new rules are 
made, some reasonable time uiould be allowed before they come into full effect, 
especially in the case of existing ships, and as it is expected that the Conference will 
formulate a number of general principles with regard to several different subjects, it 
will be necessary in each case to consider — 

(a) at about what date the new rules can be applied to new ships; 

(b) how long an interval is it reasonable to allow in the case of existing ships; 

(c). during mat interval, should existing ships be allowed to continue under the 
present regulations, or ehould special regulations be made to govern them during the 
period of transition. 



Pro JET D£ RtGLBMENT DE LA CONFERENCE DE LONDRES. 

Article 1. 

LA conference est form^e de tons les d^l^gu^ annonc^ par les pays invites. 

Chaque pays a une voix. 

Chaque pays peut ^tre repr^ent^ soit par im ou plusieurs d^l^u^s, soit par la 
delegation d'un autre pays. 

Toutefois, le d^l^gue ou les d^l^gu^s d'un pays ne peuvent representor que deux 
pays. 

Article 2. 

La pr^sidence est d^volue au Gouvemement qui convoq^ue la reunion. 

Le president ouvre et cldt les seances, dirig^e les deliberations et proclame le resultat 
des votes. La composition du secretariat lui appartient, et il designe, pour la redac- 
tion des proc^-verbaux, les secretaires qu*il juge necessaires. 

38444—14 ^17 



258 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Article 3. 

La coafi^ieQGe d^lfb^ ttckt en «^nce8 pl^ni^res, eoit en commioBion. 

Abtiole 4. 

Les deliberations de la conference et de see commissions sont stdctement 
dentielles. Des communicatioiur ik la preBoe ne pourrofnt dtze faites que sous I'ai 
du president. 

Article 5. 

Lee secretaires des delegations eont admis It assister aux seances de la conf 
^ des commissions. lis n'oot ni voix deiiberatire, ni voix consultative. 
Beuvent prendre la parole )}ue sur Tinvitation expreste du president pour la 1 
des proc^-verbaux et autres documents. 

Article 6. 

JiCS f onctionnaires attaches aux membres deiegues et les experts consultants p( 
ttare admis aux seances, nuds sans avoir le droit de prendre part aux discussion 
Conference. 

Article 7. 

Les seances generales out lieu sur la convocation du president aux jour et 
fixes par la lettre de convocation ou arrdtes d'un commim accord k la seance prec6 

Article 8. 

La langue fran^aise est ad(^tee pour les actes de la conference. Dans les ep 
des proc^-verbaux les discours seront rapportes en frangais ou en anglais, suiv 
Itogue dans laquelle ils sont prononces. Lia redaction difiniHve des proc^-ve 
sera faite en fran^ais. 

Article 9. 

Les discoura et les discussions des seances pieni^res seront dactvlographi^ 
rapport formera I'epreuve du procfts-verbal mentionnee dans Tarticle preceden 

Article 10. 

Les differents deiegues sont ranges autour de la salle des deliberations, en su 
I'ordre idphabetique, lee deiegues d'un mdme nays, lorsqu'il y en a plusieurs, 
places les \XDB k cdte des autres. Toutefois, la delegation britamuque est | 
aupres du president afin que celui-ci puisse consulter see collides en sa capac 

deiegue. 

Les deiegues ne prennent la parole qu'apr^ Tavior obtenue du president. 

Article 11. 

Chacun des deiegues pent donner lecture ou demander qu'il soit donne 1( 
de toute proposition presentee par lui et pent 6tre admis k en exposer les motif 

Article 12. 

Tout deiegue pent prendre part k la discussion des propositions soumises k L 
f erence. Le deiegue d'.ime acuninistration qui serait emp^he par maladie d'a; 
k une seance a la faculte de charger de sa voix la delegation d'une autre adi 
tration. 

Article 13. 

Aucune proposition n'est adoptee si elle ne reunit la majorite absolue des suf 
exprimes. En cas d'egalite, elle est consideree comme rejetee. 

Article 14. 

, Ghaque proposition mise en deliberation est soumise k la votation, quand c< 
eat formeliement reclamee. Le vote a Ueu par appel nominal et suivant I 




SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 259 

Article 16. 

La conference pent renvoyer au pr^avis de commissions sp^ciales les Questions 
soumises k see deliberations. Dans lee commissians le vote est donne par delegation, 
chaque delation representee ayant droit k une voix. Chaque pays pent dtre 
represente soit par un ou plusieurs deiegues, soit par la delegation d^un autre pays. 
Toutefois, le defegue ou les deiegues d'un pays ne peuvent representer que deux pays. 

Article 16. 

X>e president designe les secretaires des commissions. Les secretaires dresseront 
un resume substantiel des deiibemtions des commissions, k moins que celles-^si ne 
decident, d'une mani^re generale ou dans tel cas particulier, qu'il sera dresse un 
proems- verbal. 

Article 17. 

Le resultat des travaux des diverses commissions est sounds en seance pieni^re k 
Tapprobation de la conference, qui prend ime decision k leur sujet. 

Ces decisions sont renvoyees a une commission de redaction dont Tactivite es^ 
egalement regiee par les dispositions de Tarticle 16, et ^m est chargee d'etablir, cpn- 
formement auxdites decisions, le nouveau texte des articles amendes et de mettre* en 
harmonie les autres dispositions avec ceux-ci, purement au point de vue de la forme. 

Article 18. 

Le texte resultant des travaux de la commission de redaction est soumis k Tappro- 
bation de la conference. 

Les decisions de la conference ne sont considerees comme definitivement votees 
qu'apr^s une seconde lecture. 

Article 19. 

Les actes resultant des deliberations de la conference sont soumis k la signature des 
deiegues munis de pouvoirs de leur Gouvemement. 



LiSTE des D^LiOU^S k la CoNFJBRENCE INTERNATIONALE SUR LA SifeCURlTi: DES 

Transports maritimes. 

Pour TAllemagne: 

Son Exceflence Dr. von Koemer, Conseiller actuel intime. Chef de la Section de 
Commerce au Departement Imperial des Affaires Etrang^res, Premier Deiegue 
pienipotentiaire ; 
Dr. Seeliger, Conseiller actuel intime de Legation, Conseiller Rapporteur au 

D6paJtement Imperial des Affaires Etrang^res, Deiegue pienipotentiaire: 
M. Schtitt, Conseiller intime du Gouvemement, Conseiller Kapporteur au Depar- 
tement Imperial de I'lnterieur, Deiegue pienipotentiaire; 
Dr. Riess, Conseiller intime du Gouvemement, Membre du Departement Imperial 

des Assurances, Deiegue pienipotentiaire; 
M. le Professeur Pagel, Directeur de la Societe des Classifications ''Germanischer 
Lloyd , " D eiegue pienipotentiaire . 
Delipues sj)iciaiuc pour la consideration des questions concemant la radio- 
tiUgraphie et V observation des glaces: 
M. Schrader, Conseiller intime superieur au Departement Imperial des Postes, 
Conseiller Rapporteur k TOffice des Postes de I'Empire, Deiegue pienipoten- 
tiaire; 
M. le Contre-Amiral en retraite Behm, Directeur de la "Detusche Seewarte,** 
Deiegue pienipotentlare. 
DStigues Adjoints: 
M. le Capitaine de vaisseau en retraite Schmaltz, Attache au Departement de 

rinterieur; 
M. Walter, Directeur du ''Norddeutscher Lloyd"; 
M. Polls, Directeur de la ^'Hamburg-Amerika Linie"; 
M. E. Gribel, Associe de la maison Rud. Christ Gribel, Stettin. 

Secretaire: 
M. Voelkner, Secretaire intime au Minist^re des Affaires Etrang^res. 

Attache h la Diligation: 
M. de Billow, Attache au Service diplomatique. 



260 SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 

Pour lea Etats-Unis d'Am^rique: 

L'Honorable J. W. Alexander, Membre de la Chambre dee Repr^sentants, Premier 

D61^u6 pl^nipotentiaire; 
L'Honorable Jas. Hamilton Lewis, Membre du S^nat, D61^gu6 pl^nipotentiaire; 
L'Honorable T. E. Burton, Membre du S6nat, D61^u6 pl^nipotentiaire; 
L'Honorable E. T. Chamberlain, Directeur de la Marine marchande, D^l^gud 

pl^nipotentiaire ; 
M. le Captaine-Commandant E. P. Bertholf, du Service des Cdtres de Douane, 

T>6l6gu6 pl^nipotentiaire; 
M. le Contre-Amiral Washington L. Capps, du G6nie maritime, D^l^gu^ pl^nipo- 

tentiaire; 
M. le Capitaine de vaisseau George F. Cooper, Hydrographe de la Marine, D61^gu6 

pl^nipotentiaire ; 
M. Homer L. Ferguson, Administrateur-G^rant de la Compagnie de Newport News s 
pour la Construction des Navires et des Bassins de Radoub, D^l^gue pl^nipo- : 
tentiaire; 
M. Alfred Gilbert Smith, Vice-PrMdent de la "New York and Cuba Mail Steam- 
ship Company," D616gu6 pl^nipotentiaire* 
M. Andrew Furuseth, Chef du Syndicat des Marins, D614gu6 pl6nipotentiaire; 
, M. le Capitaine de vaisseau W. H. G. Bullard, Surintendant au Service naval de 

Radiot^l^graphie, D616gu6 pl^nipotentiaire; 
M. George Uhler, Inspecteur g^eral des Navires k vapeur, D416gu6 pl^nipo- 
tentiau-e. 
DiUgiii Adjoint: 
M. Lewis B. McBride, Constructeur naval. 

Secretaire: 
M. Walter R. Alexander. 
Pour TAustralie: 

M. ,le Capitaine R. Muirhead Collins, Secretaire oflSciel de la Confederation des 
Etats d'Australie k Londres. 
Pour TAutriche-Hongrie: 

M. le Baron Georges de Franckenstein, Conseiller de Legation et Directeur des 
Affaires commerciales de TAmbassade d'Autriche-Hongrie k Londres. 
Pour TAutriche: 

M. le Docteur en droit Paul Schreckenthal, Secretaire au Minist^re Imperial 

Royal autrichien du Commerce; 
M. Pierre Fragiacomo, Adjoint naval de TAdministration maritime autrichienne 

k Trieste; 
M. Guiliaume Palm, Ingenieur naval superieur Imperial et Royal en retraite, 
Attache k r Administration maritime autrichienne a Trieste. 
Pour la Hongrie: 

M. Ladislaus Dunay, Conseiller de section de 1' Administration maritime Royale 

hongroise k Fiume; 
M. Andor Steinacker, Ingenieur dipldme de construction navale; 
M. fitienne Machay, Ingenieur des Chemins de Fer d'Etat, attache k I'Admin- 
istration maritime Royale hongroise k Fiume. 
Pour la Belgique: 

M. E. A. rierrard, Directeur general de la Marine au Minist^re d6 la Marine, des 

Postes et des Teiegraphes; 
M. Ch. Le Jeune, President du Comite maritime international; 
M. L. Franck, Avocat, Membre de la Chambre des Representants, Vice-President 
du Comite maritime international. 
Delegui Adjoint: 
M. J. de Ruelle, Chef de bureau au Minist^re des Affaires Etrang^res. 

Secretaires: ... ' 

M. le Commandant A. Bultinck, Inspecteur k I'Administration de la Marine; 
M. J. Hostie, Avocat, Conseiller juridique k TAdministration de la Marine; 
M. E. Bogaert, Ingenieur de la Marine. 

Secretaire Adjoint: 
M. R. Capelle, attache au Miniature des Affaires Etrangeres. 
Pour le Canada: 

M. Alexander Johnston, Sous-Ministre de la Marine et des P^cheries. 

Delegues Adjoints: 
M. Frank McDonnell, Vice-President du Comite pour Tlnspection des Vapeurs; 
M. Charles F. M. Duguid, Constructeur principal au Departement de la Marine 

et des P^cheries; 
M. H. Maitland Kersey, Administrateur-Gerant des Vapeurs C.P.R. 



SAFETY OF UFB AT SBA. 261 

f^our le Danemark: 

M. A. H. M Rasmussen, Directeur de rinstruction dee M^aniciens d'etat; 

M. Emil Krogh, Chef de d^partement au Minist^ du Commerce et de la Navi- 
gation; 

M. Hdst, AdminiBtrateur de la **Soci^t6 anonyme unitize des Vapours"; 

M. V. Topsoe-Jensen, Sous-Chef de d^partement et Secretaire eu Minist^e de 
la Justice. 
Secretaire: 

M. Axel Helper, Secretaire au Ministere du Commerce et de la Navigation. 
*our TEspagne: 

M. le Capitaine de vaisseau Don Ra^l Bausd, Chef de la Commission navale 
espagnole k Londres. 
Secrttaire: 

M. le Capitaine de corvette Don Eliseo Sanchiz. 
*o\XT la France: 

M. Guemier, President de la Delegation, Professeur d^Economie politiaue k 
rUniversite de Lille, Depute^ Vice-President de la Commission de la Marine 
k la Chambre des Deputes. Vice-President du Conseil superieur de la Naviga- 
tion maritime, Deiegue plenipotentiaire; 

M. Trefeu, Directeur honoraire de la Navigation maritime au Minist^re de la 
Marine; 

M. le Contre-Amiral Joumet; 

M. Boris, I^enieur principal du Genie maritime; 

M. Frouin, Directeur de T Exploitation teiegraphique au Minist^re du Commerce, 
de P Industrie, des Postes et des Teie^pnes; 

M. Geraud, Secretaire general de P Administration coloniale; 

M. le Capitaine Brenot, Conseiller technique de P Administration coloniale. 
Deleguis Adjoints: 

M. Grolous, Ingenieur en chef du conseil de la Compagnie generale transatlantique; 

M. Berlhe de Berlhe, Ingenieur en chef du Bureau Veritas. 
Secritaire: 

M. Keller, Enseigne de vaisseau de la Marine frangaise. 
?our la Grande-Bretj^e: 

Le Tr^s Honorable Lord Mersey, ancien President de la Division pour les A^ires 
testamentaires, matrimoniales et maritimes de la Haute Cour de Justice, et 
President de la Cour d'EnquSte sur la Perte du vapeur " Titanic,'* Premier 
Dei%ue plenipotentiaire ; 

M. E. G. Moggridge, Secretaire adjoint du Departement de la Marine au Board of 
Trade, deuxi^me Deiegue plenipotentiaire; 

Sir Archibald Denny, Bart., President du Comite departemental sur les Cloisona 
et les Compartiments etanches, Deiegue plenipotentiaire; 

Sir Norman Hill, President du Comite conseiller de la Marine marchande, Deie- 
gue plenipotentiaire; 

Sir John Biles, LL.D., D.Sc, ancien President du Comite departemental sur 
les Bateaux de Sauvetage et les Bossoirs, Deiegue plenipotentiaire; 

M. le Capitaine Acton Blake, Deputy Master de Trinity House, Deiegue pleni- 
potentiaire; 

M. le Capitaine A. H. F. Young, Conseiller au Departement de la Marine au 
Board of Trade, Deiegue plenipotentiaire; 

M. C. Hipwood, du Departement de la Marine au Board of Trade, Deiegue pleni- 
potentiaire; 

M. W. p. Archer, Inspecteur principal de Vaisseauv au Board of Trade, Deiegud 
plenipotentiaire . 
Experts consultants: 

M. le Capitaine de corvette F. G. Loring, R.N,; 

M. le Capitaine de corvette J. T. W. Charles, C.B., R.N.R.; 

M. le Capitaine de corvette M. W. Campbell-Hepworth, C.B., R.N.R.; 

M.J. Havelock Wilson. 
Secretaires: 

M. J. A. Webster, Secretaire particulier au President du Board of Trade; 

M. G. H. Locock, Secretaire particulier au Sous-Secretaire parlementaire des 
Affaires Etrang^res. 
Secretaires Adjoints: 

M. F. P. Robinson, du Departement de la Marine au Board of Trade; 

M. T. Lodge, '^ 

M. W. Carter, 

M. H. Leak, 

AttacM aux Secretaires: 

M. G. H. E. Pair, Vice-Consul, employe au Mimal^te d^ Ml-Kvr^^VTKwgswft., 



(( (( (( (( 

II tt It tt 



2&2^ SAFETY or LIFE AT SEA. 

Pourl'ItaUe: 

Grande Ufficiale Oommendatore Oai^lo BroHo, Direoteur g^n^l de la Mftri 

marchande, Chef de la D616ga)ti«n; 
M. ie G^n^ral Ing^nieur Vittorio Ripa di Meana, Major-G^n^ral du G6me m 

Italian; 
Oavaliere Ufficiale Gustavo Tosti, Consul g6n^l; 
Commendatore Giovanni Battista Veroggio, Capitaine de Port de Premiere C 

Chef du District maritime de G^nes; 
Cavaliere Ing^nieur Filippo Bonfiglietti, Colonel des Ing^nieurs navals; 
M. le Comte Carlo Rey ai Villarey, Capitaine de corvette, Attach^ naval i 

k Londres; 
Nobile Dr. Guglielmo di Palma Castiglione; 
Commendatore Ing^nieur Michele FLleti, Directeur g^n^ral de la Comp 

maritime * * La Veloce '* ; 
Signer Domenico BarricelU, Ing^nieur naval et m^canicien, Inspect eur princij 

du "Registre national italien pour la Visite et la Classification des Na\a 

marchands." 
SecrStaire: 
Cavaliere Pier Luigi Fiore, Officier de Port de Troisi^me Classe. 
Pour le Japon: 

M. Isaburo Yoshida, deuxi^ine secretaire de Tambassade du Japon k Londres. 
M. Ryozo Togashi, Ingeni6ur. 
Pour la Norv^e: 

M. Harald Pedersen, Directeur principal de 1* Office de la Marine marchande; 
Dr. Johannes Bruhn, Directeur principal du ^'Noreke Veritas"; 
M. Jens Evang, Secretaire an Mmistdre des Affaires l^trang^res. 
Pour les Pays-Bas: 

M. J. V. Wierdsma, President du Comity des Directeurs de la Compagnie d 

Vapeurs Pays-Ba8-Am6rique, President de la Delegation, Deiegue pienip 

tentiaire; 
M. H. S. J. Maas, Consul general des Pays-Bas k Londres, Vice-president de 

Deifeition, Deiegue pienipotentiaire; 
M. A. D. Muller, Inspecteur general de la Navigation, Dei^ue pienipotentiair 
M. J. Wilmink, Directeur du Lloyd Royal Hollandais, Dei^ue pienipotentiair 
M. J. W. G. Coops, Chef de Division au Minist^re de I'Agriculture, de I'lndustr 

et du Commerce, Secretaire de la Delegation, Deiegue pienipotentiaire. 
D6l6gu6s Adjoints: 
M. le Professeur E. Vossnack, Professeur de 1' Architecture navale k TUniversi 

technique de Delft; 
M. H. J. Nierstrasz, Chef du Service technique de la Radioteiegraphie; 
M. P. H. Galie, Directeur adjoint de Tlnstitut Royal neerlandais de Meteorologi« 
Pour la Russie: 

M. Roman Mikhailovitch Loviaguin, Conseiller d'Etat, Inspecteur de la Marit 

marchande et des Ports. 
D6l6gu6 Adjoint: 
M. Emil Gustavovitch Leman, Ingenieur, Conseiller de Cour. 
Pour la Su^de: 

M. le Vice-Amiral Olsen, G.C.V.O.; 

M. W. R. B. Lundgren, Directeur de la ** Swedish South Africa Line" et de 1 

"Swedish Australian Line," ancien Membre de la Chambre des Representanti 
M. Eliel Loefgren, Avocat, ancien Membre du Senat; 

M. N. G, Nilsson, Inspecteur des Engins de Sauvetage au Minist^e du Commerce 
Pour la Nouvelle-Zeiande: 

L'Honorable Thomas Mackenzie, Haut Commissaire du Gouvemement de 1 

Nouvelle-Zeiande k Londres. 



RD-4 9 



X 



^ 















'Ok' 



■ >,. 4* • 



•• ^*'"*^ -• 










































'*.,*- : 



• «. =,» -"^ 



• «*'•*. --^ 









•>. .^^ °* i" <t. .V 



.»»*>• 





















%/ 






. \. ^ .•£ 

•■ A 11 



.-V 



'*.<**'.•;'' 












y 



- 'bp' 



. DONS BROS. NC 

J V! 8 3 "t 

r. AUGUSTINE '